Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Should Christians go from Church to Church?

francisdesales said:
Cornelius said:
I am sure Joe will tell you too that the word catholic (with small letters) just means "universal"

It really refers to the whole church (all believers) .Its only in when it becomes Catholic, that it refers to the institution. So in reality all who are part of the "called out ones" are indeed part of the "whole" or "catholic".

Catholic generally means the entire Church, as opposed to a particular community, as, for example, the catholic epistles. It means "throughout the whole". Naturally, it refers to a particular community, in context of when the term was used. Clearly, Paul was not writing to people OUTSIDE the various communities. He was not writing to "all people of good will" in Thessalonia, nor was he writing to Judaizers in Corinth. He was not writing to Jews in Rome, nor was he writing to Gnostics in Colassae. And finally, he was not writing to men of Mithra in Ephesus... Thus, the term "catholic" refers to the men and women of the Church, those called out who had answered the call by joining the community through Baptism.

Regards
By community I believe you are referring to those who are in the Body of believers, called the Body of Christ ? So catholic in its root meaning would simply refer to the church or Body of Christ as they are dispersed throughout the world. ("throughout the whole") In that sense all Christians are part of that catholic. It means universal . In way any Christian who sees themselves as part of the Body of Christ is part of the catholic, although they are not part of the group that has taken that name to point to their denomination, which then has a capital C and not c.

Just as the term "Full Gospel" is in reality the way that all of us must be, but that denomination has claimed it for their group. There is no other gospel, it has to be the full gospel. There is no other Church accept the church that is universal , all over the planet and they are the called out ones.
 
Cornelius said:
By community I believe you are referring to those who are in the Body of believers, called the Body of Christ ? So catholic in its root meaning would simply refer to the church or Body of Christ as they are dispersed throughout the world.

Yes, visible communities with the same/very similar beliefs. There is only one true Church, in the Christian sense, and the members are united in some fashion, some more than others. Membership depends on a number of factors, first of which begins with baptism. Secondly, Paul tells us of one faith. Now, in today's day, what is the EXTANT of that one faith? That is a more difficult question - in other words, at what point does a person's beliefs leave them outside of the Church?

Cornelius said:
Just as the term "Full Gospel" is in reality the way that all of us must be, but that denomination has claimed it for their group. There is no other gospel, it has to be the full gospel. There is no other Church accept the church that is universal , all over the planet and they are the called out ones.

Different Christians can teach part of the entire, full Gospel. There is no "full" and that's it. People can have access to part of the truths of our faith, which means they do not possess the fullness of the Gospel. Such could be considered attached to the Church, but in a separated and mysterious manner, part of the Church, but not possessing the fullness of the faith.

Regards
 
francisdesales said:
Different Christians can teach part of the entire, full Gospel. There is no "full" and that's it. People can have access to part of the truths of our faith, which means they do not possess the fullness of the Gospel. Such could be considered attached to the Church, but in a separated and mysterious manner, part of the Church, but not possessing the fullness of the faith.

Regards

I do not understand. You say
1) Different Christians can teach part of the entire, full Gospel
and then you contradict by saying:
2)There is no "full" and that's it.

Who are you referring to here :People can have access to part of the truths of our faith, Who is the "our" ?
in a separated and mysterious manner, part of the Church, but not possessing the fullness of the faith.

How Biblical is this? Paul would obviously ask you:1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided?

God has no church other than those whom He has called out.
 
Cornelius said:
I do not understand. You say
1) Different Christians can teach part of the entire, full Gospel
and then you contradict by saying:
2)There is no "full" and that's it.

Sorry for the poor grammar.

A person can teach part of the entire Gospel. One can be correct about some of it, wrong about other parts of it.

Thus, there is not either "i teach the entire Gospel unadultered" or "i teach none of the Gospel truths"...

People can have access to parts of the truth.

Cornelius said:
Who are you referring to here :People can have access to part of the truths of our faith, Who is the "our" ?

The faith once given to the Apostles, taught by the Church, way before the Reformation.

Cornelius said:
in a separated and mysterious manner, part of the Church, but not possessing the fullness of the faith.

People can possess parts of the truth. For example, a person can be legitimately baptized, but does not believe that Jesus Christ is God, only some angelic figure (see the letter to the Hebrews where "Paul" corrects young Christians of that mistake).

Cornelius said:
How Biblical is this? Paul would obviously ask you:1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided?

It is very Biblical, see above for one example. The writers of Scriptures are often found correcting incorrect teachings of Christianity held by some of the community as a result of false teachings or people who think they have some sort of pipeline to God Himself and that the Spirit of God no longer rests within the Church, but only within themselves.

Cornelius said:
God has no church other than those whom He has called out.

Yes, I know that. A person called out is made visible and belongs to a visible body, just as our Lord and Savior was visible and had a visible body. A person called out does not remain "invisible".

Regards
 
Sorry for the poor grammar.

A person can teach part of the entire Gospel. One can be correct about some of it, wrong about other parts of it.

Thus, there is not either "i teach the entire Gospel unadultered" or "i teach none of the Gospel truths"...

People can have access to parts of the truth.

Paul teaches that we will ultimately grow into the fullness of Christ . I take that to mean even truth, because He says I am the truth.

Eph 4:12 for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ:
Eph 4:13 till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a fullgrown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:


So if you don't mind, I am going with what Paul says, that we can indeed have the full gospel in Christ.




The faith once given to the Apostles, taught by the Church, way before the Reformation.

Again, I am rather going to go with Scripture and leave out the bit about "taught by the Church" . I am going to go with:1Co 15:1 Now I make known unto you brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand,
1Co 15:2 by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast the word which I preached unto you, except ye believed in vain.


and

Eph 2:20 being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone;
As I do not see the mention of the "teaching of the Church" I am sure you would agree that I am still 100% in line with the Scriptures.



People can possess parts of the truth. For example, a person can be legitimately baptized, but does not believe that Jesus Christ is God, only some angelic figure (see the letter to the Hebrews where "Paul" corrects young Christians of that mistake).

You have to be a little more specific here. Maybe just quote the scripture ?



It is very Biblical, see above for one example. The writers of Scriptures are often found correcting incorrect teachings of Christianity held by some of the community as a result of false teachings or people who think they have some sort of pipeline to God Himself and that the Spirit of God no longer rests within the Church, but only within themselves.

My question was really : Is it Biblical (within the will and Word of God) that Christ may indeed be divided. (sorry if I was being unclear )


Yes, I know that. A person called out is made visible and belongs to a visible body, just as our Lord and Savior was visible and had a visible body. A person called out does not remain "invisible".

You mean you want to look at "us" ? Well, if you would get onto a plane and visit, you will certainly see us here as the visible body of Christ. :)

blessings
C
 
Cornelius said:
Paul teaches that we will ultimately grow into the fullness of Christ . I take that to mean even truth, because He says I am the truth.

Eph 4:12 for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ:
Eph 4:13 till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a fullgrown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:


So if you don't mind, I am going with what Paul says, that we can indeed have the full gospel in Christ.

:confused

Paul doesn't say we NOW have the fullness of Christ. He says UNTIL we measure the stature of the fulness of Christ. I would venture to say very few of us here MEASURE TO THE STATURE of Christ, brother...

This is the problem with the "church of one" crowd, no room for objective correction. The more you read through the erroneous lense that you have created, the further you reinforce the error you have made...

Furthermore, your claims aside, there is only one truth, not dozens, hundreds of them. You sound like another of those "the Spirit leads me and so I am always right" mentality. No doubt, when two of such "churches" get together, the one who is "more right" is the one who shouts the loudest??? Maybe speaks in "tongues"??? :salute

Thankfully, God gave us a better way of knowing the truth - and nowhere does the Scriptures state that it comes from merely READING the Bible in one's home...

Cornelius said:
Again, I am rather going to go with Scripture and leave out the bit about "taught by the Church" .

I am going to go with:1Co 15:1 Now I make known unto you brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand,
1Co 15:2 by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast the word which I preached unto you, except ye believed in vain.

Again, you twist the words of Scriptures. Paul is among the first churchmen... Did he or did he not establish common churches with the SAME beliefs all over the Mediterranean vicinity? Did he not preach with authority, and establish authority among junior teachers of the faith, charging other Christians to heed and obey them? I presume you have read the Pastorals...

I don't have a problem holding fast to the word given to the Apostles and still taught in the Church established by Christ, where His Spirit guides to all truth... Or did the Spirit leave the Church, which existed long before the Reformation??? Can you point me to the Scriptures that tell me that the Spirit left the Church to start up another one???

Cornelius said:
Eph 2:20 being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone; [/b] As I do not see the mention of the "teaching of the Church" I am sure you would agree that I am still 100% in line with the Scriptures.

The Apostles and their successors provide the teaching of the Church... Such as the teaching of the Eucharist.

You are not in line with the Scriptures since you choose not to follow the successors who continue to teach the correct understanding of the Scriptures.

Cornelius said:
francisdesales said:
People can possess parts of the truth. For example, a person can be legitimately baptized, but does not believe that Jesus Christ is God, only some angelic figure (see the letter to the Hebrews where "Paul" corrects young Christians of that mistake).

You have to be a little more specific here. Maybe just quote the scripture ?

Sorry, I thought you were more well-versed in Scriptures to recognize this right away...

Rather than posting it, you can read the entire chapter 1 of Hebrews for yourself from the translation of your choosing. It is only the obstinate who would pretend to think that all Christians magically KNOW all the truth that God has taught through the Apostles, just because they were once enlightened through baptism. Some Christians require a teacher, as "Paul" continues to tell the Hebrew readers...

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which [be] the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk [is] unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, [even] those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. Hebrews 5:12-14

Obviously, "Paul" disagrees with your unbiblical thesis, spending 5 chapters worth at this point to tell his audience that they were STILL "unskilled in the word of righteousness".

What makes you so sure you are any better than the Hebrew audience, without a teacher to feed you, brother?

Cornelius said:
My question was really : Is it Biblical (within the will and Word of God) that Christ may indeed be divided. (sorry if I was being unclear )

Of course not, so when are you coming back??? :P

Reform begins WITHIN the Church, not from the outside. That is not "reform", that is "re-invention". There is only one church, and those who leave to start ANOTHER are not protect by the promise of Christ, since only ONE Church was established. There are no provisions for another church to be set up.

Cornelius said:
You mean you want to look at "us" ? Well, if you would get onto a plane and visit, you will certainly see us here as the visible body of Christ. :)

I doubt that I would recognize you as being part of the "visible Body of Christ" just because you call yourself the "called out". But like I said, Paul was writing to a particular visible community, identifiable by the local population. They were known as Christians, they met at a particular time, met at a particular place, and Paul wrote THEM, not to vague people who were invisible and unknown to anyone, meeting in their closet with themselves or their next-door neighbor. Thus, the Church is a visible entity with particular beliefs and ritual practices.

Regards
 
WE are the 'church' regardless of where we choose to fellowship..even if its an old barn out in the woods.

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Home "Church" ?
Wm Tipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
This article will briefly show that there were churches in homes in the NT. This is where many believers met way back when before Constantine 'legalized' "christianity" and took it under his wing.

Supporting Evidence

Rom 16:5 And greet the church that is in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia to Christ.

1Co 16:19 The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Priscilla greet you heartily in the Lord, together with the church that is in their house.

Col 4:15 Greet the brothers who are in Laodicea, and Nymphas and the church in his house.

Phm 1:2 to Apphia the beloved, and to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church at your house:
 
You are not in line with the Scriptures since you choose not to follow the successors who continue to teach the correct understanding of the Scriptures.
Where again was that passage ?
We follow the teachings of Christs CHOSEN apostles...Paul, John, Peter, etc....we need no other doctrine than what Christ gave them to convey to us.... :)
 
francisdesales said:
I didn't write that God gives salvation to catholics only. Salvation is available to all. I said Paul was WRITING to catholics, a particular VISIBLE body of Christians, not Judaizers, not Gnostics, not Essenes, not followers of Mithra, and certainly not invisible Christians with some vague connection to the Pauline communities as some imagine today.

Regards
Please :lol
Paul was writing to the ASSEMBLY...to those who are born again....to ALL Christians whether they be visible or not.
and if you want to be TECHNICAL Paul was ONLY actually writing DIRECTLY TO the specific group of believers his letter was addressed to.
So if you want to play this game then ONLY that audience needed to even worry about Pauls inspired instruction....it would not apply to ANY of us TODAY if this were the case.

Paul was inspired to write letters that would be to ALL believers EVERYWHERE...even in their home 'churches' (assemblies).

.
 
francisdesales said:
Tina said:
^

I don't recall the Apostle Paul mentioning "Catholic" anywhere in the Bible either .. :naughty
Christians were called by no other name but "Christians".

The name "Catholic" or "Katholikos" was only introduced by St. Ignatius in 107 AD.

How do you know Ignatius was the FIRST person who actually invented the term? It is only in WRITING there, but we all know we have very little of the actual writings of these men.

And doesn't the term speak of the universal mission that Christ gave to the Apostles in Matthew 28? I would think someone would have thought of the idea well before the 75 years you claim.

Regards
Altho I havent seen the word in the text either, I dont have a problem with the word 'catholic' as long is its not transformed into 'Catholic'.....ie the RCC exclusively ;)
 
francisdesales said:
Catholic generally means the entire Church, as opposed to a particular community, as, for example, the catholic epistles.
And then it gets twisted to really mean 'The Catholic Church'.
It means "throughout the whole".
Now if only it would continue in that meaning. It rarely does....especially in Catholic/Protestant debates.
If it means the 'whole' then it INCLUDES those believers in home churches...isnt that right ?

Rom 16:5 And greet the church that is in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia to Christ.

1Co 16:19 The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Priscilla greet you heartily in the Lord, together with the church that is in their house.

Col 4:15 Greet the brothers who are in Laodicea, and Nymphas and the church in his house.

Phm 1:2 to Apphia the beloved, and to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church at your house:

Clearly, Paul was not writing to people OUTSIDE the various communities. He was not writing to "all people of good will" in Thessalonia, nor was he writing to Judaizers in Corinth. He was not writing to Jews in Rome, nor was he writing to Gnostics in Colassae. And finally, he was not writing to men of Mithra in Ephesus...
Thats right. Paul was writing to BELIEVERS...and specifically to believers of certain areas.
That does not mean that Paul did not intend for those in HOME churches to hear his words.
 
francisdesales said:
Different Christians can teach part of the entire, full Gospel. There is no "full" and that's it. People can have access to part of the truths of our faith, which means they do not possess the fullness of the Gospel. Such could be considered attached to the Church, but in a separated and mysterious manner, part of the Church, but not possessing the fullness of the faith.

Regards
Wow....gee....I guess that ONE Christian family with a bible lost in a sea of Buddists is just crap out of luck, right FD ?
Too bad they werent born in the great USA where theres a church on every street corner so they could have the 'full' gospel..... :eyebrow
 
:confused

Paul doesn't say we NOW have the fullness of Christ. He says UNTIL we measure the stature of the fulness of Christ. I would venture to say very few of us here MEASURE TO THE STATURE of Christ, brother...

Do you know the reason for this immaturity in the church and what you call "Church" ? Paul tells us the reason. Can you see it? Just a verse or so back.


This is the problem with the "church of one" crowd, no room for objective correction. The more you read through the erroneous lense that you have created, the further you reinforce the error you have made...

Furthermore, your claims aside, there is only one truth, not dozens, hundreds of them. You sound like another of those "the Spirit leads me and so I am always right" mentality. No doubt, when two of such "churches" get together, the one who is "more right" is the one who shouts the loudest??? Maybe speaks in "tongues"??? :salute
I have never said there are more than one truth. There is only one.
Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life:


Thankfully, God gave us a better way of knowing the truth - and nowhere does the Scriptures state that it comes from merely READING the Bible in one's home...
You actually think that I am isolated ? The Bible clearly tells us not to stop coming together and I listen to the Word. :) I also have the five fold ministry that looks after me and they look after each other.We are many and we are everywhere. We are the Body of Christ.



Again, you twist the words of Scriptures. Paul is among the first churchmen... Did he or did he not establish common churches with the SAME beliefs all over the Mediterranean vicinity? Did he not preach with authority, and establish authority among junior teachers of the faith, charging other Christians to heed and obey them? I presume you have read the Pastorals...
Of course he did.:) but never told us to be taught by the church. We have to build on the foundations of the apostles.........only. The teachers (one of the five fold ministry must teach ! )

I don't have a problem holding fast to the word given to the Apostles and still taught in the Church established by Christ, where His Spirit guides to all truth... Or did the Spirit leave the Church, which existed long before the Reformation??? Can you point me to the Scriptures that tell me that the Spirit left the Church to start up another one???

Exactly and some actually belief they have a monopoly on it. The church is still the church as it was in the time of Paul.

Cornelius said:
The Apostles and their successors provide the teaching of the Church... Such as the teaching of the Eucharist.
Lets not go there.

[quote:xas0eofr]You are not in line with the Scriptures since you choose not to follow the successors who continue to teach the correct understanding of the Scriptures.

That would be your view of course. Its the same view held by Jehovahs Witnesses. And the Baptist and the Pentecostals and the Hindus and the Buddhists. All groups believe the others are wrong, therefor they are groups, which is the Greek word for heresies.(sects, denominations) all who have a name that separate themselves from the other, are part of it.


People can possess parts of the truth. For example, a person can be legitimately baptized, but does not believe that Jesus Christ is God, only some angelic figure (see the letter to the Hebrews where "Paul" corrects young Christians of that mistake).

Sorry, I thought you were more well-versed in Scriptures to recognize this right away...

No I want you to point our the scripture to me, that says that people are Christians even when they believe Jesus is an angel.
Rather than posting it, you can read the entire chapter 1 of Hebrews for yourself from the translation of your choosing. It is only the obstinate who would pretend to think that all Christians magically KNOW all the truth that God has taught through the Apostles, just because they were once enlightened through baptism. Some Christians require a teacher, as "Paul" continues to tell the Hebrew readers...

I agree. Godly men who have a gift of teaching from the Lord must teach the body of Christ. God GAVE teachers as a gift to us. Teaching is a gift and cannot be studied. A gift is given. So its not "magic" its simply the knowledge that comes to a man through the gift, that is through grace.

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which [be] the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk [is] unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, [even] those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. Hebrews 5:12-14

Obviously, "Paul" disagrees with your unbiblical thesis, spending 5 chapters worth at this point to tell his audience that they were STILL "unskilled in the word of righteousness".

I agree with Paul. Nothing has changed. The whole church (and I use that term loosely ), in fact is far more immature today, then in his day.

What makes you so sure you are any better than the Hebrew audience, without a teacher to feed you, brother?

Who said I have no teacher?


Of course not, so when are you coming back??? :P
I cannot enter error, salvation is without the camp.
Reform begins WITHIN the Church, not from the outside. That is not "reform", that is "re-invention". There is only one church, and those who leave to start ANOTHER are not protect by the promise of Christ, since only ONE Church was established. There are no provisions for another church to be set up.
Its not Scriptural, God ALWAYS calls His people OUT of error. Never are we told to stay inside. What you call Church has long time ago forgotten the meaning of that word. So has the rest of "church" Today its about men and what they think and decide.

Its always come out ! Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come forth, my people, out of her, that ye have no fellowship with her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues:

Cornelius said:
You mean you want to look at "us" ? Well, if you would get onto a plane and visit, you will certainly see us here as the visible body of Christ. :)
I doubt that I would recognize you as being part of the "visible Body of Christ" just because you call yourself the "called out".
You have to look at my fruit .

But like I said, Paul was writing to a particular visible community, identifiable by the local population. They were known as Christians, they met at a particular time, met at a particular place, and Paul wrote THEM, not to vague people who were invisible and unknown to anyone, meeting in their closet with themselves or their next-door neighbor. Thus, the Church is a visible entity with particular beliefs and ritual practices.
[/quote:xas0eofr]
The church writes to me on a regular basis too from all over the world. I meet with them on a regular basis too wherever they are. We break bread together and share the cup of wine in His blood. We get taught, we pray and we see miracles. God actually heals people in our meetings. Saved a woman from loosing a limb the other day when we came to God as the Body of Christ and interceded. He heard and followed the gospel with signs and wonders.People are getting into salvation through our meetings, although we go by no name. We are only part of the church that meet in Pretoria. We do respect the body of Christ wherever we meet up with our brothers and sisters. God is moving and we are just following.
I have been looking for reality in God for thirty years. I only found religion until God called me out. I left and found what I was looking for. Reality in Christ. The Word that is actually alive and worthy to stand on. Truth like none other. Christ started coming forth in me for the first time and real communication with the Lord started happening. I finally have what I have been looking for and it is getting better every day. Its about to get a lot better soon :) We are at the door of the tribulation.

The church without the walls, is alive and well and is covering the earth.

C
 
follower of Christ said:
Paul was writing to the ASSEMBLY...to those who are born again....to ALL Christians whether they be visible or not.
and if you want to be TECHNICAL Paul was ONLY actually writing DIRECTLY TO the specific group of believers his letter was addressed to.
So if you want to play this game then ONLY that audience needed to even worry about Pauls inspired instruction....it would not apply to ANY of us TODAY if this were the case.

Paul was writing to particular Christians with particular beliefs. Clearly, he was not writing to Judaizers or Gnostics. Thus, to say Paul was writing to "believers" is an overstatement, since ALL believers were not part of the Apostolic communities. Gnostics and Judaizers "believed" in Christ as the Messiah in their own way - but were considered outcast by the nascent Pauline Christian communities. Any reader of Scripture with a mind to history and politics can see this.

Now, if you think that is a game I am playing, that is your issue that you appear to be dragging over here from our last conversation... I am not playing games. I am merely pointing out that Paul was writing to a specific group of men and women, not some vague group of people unnamed or unknown by anyone, including Paul. He KNEW who he was writing to. He even names many people throughout his corpus.

If you consider that a game, I don't know what to tell you - but I don't intend on entering another pointlessly long conversation on obvious things.

Regards
 
follower of Christ said:
francisdesales said:
Tina said:
^

I don't recall the Apostle Paul mentioning "Catholic" anywhere in the Bible either .. :naughty
Christians were called by no other name but "Christians".

The name "Catholic" or "Katholikos" was only introduced by St. Ignatius in 107 AD.

How do you know Ignatius was the FIRST person who actually invented the term? It is only in WRITING there, but we all know we have very little of the actual writings of these men.

And doesn't the term speak of the universal mission that Christ gave to the Apostles in Matthew 28? I would think someone would have thought of the idea well before the 75 years you claim.

Regards
Altho I havent seen the word in the text either, I dont have a problem with the word 'catholic' as long is its not transformed into 'Catholic'.....ie the RCC exclusively ;)

RCC? We don't call ourselves that, so why would I make such a statement??? The term is from the "Deformation" era of the Church...
 
francisdesales said:
RCC? We don't call ourselves that, so why would I make such a statement??? The term is from the "Deformation" era of the Church...

Are you an Orthodox Catholic ?
 
Cornelius said:
francisdesales said:
Paul doesn't say we NOW have the fullness of Christ. He says UNTIL we measure the stature of the fulness of Christ. I would venture to say very few of us here MEASURE TO THE STATURE of Christ, brother...

Do you know the reason for this immaturity in the church and what you call "Church" ? Paul tells us the reason. Can you see it? Just a verse or so back.

The point is that NOW, we are not "mature" and "know" the entire fullness of the Gospel, nor do we measure to the stature of Christ. You imply we magically are. According to you, "we" are infused with some sort of divine knowledge upon our baptism that enables us to ignore the need of teachers, moral or doctrinal, despite the constant proof of the contrary by the very EXISTENCE of the Scriptures!

I realize my shortcomings and my need for preachers and teachers to constantly exhort and correct me.
So did the first Christians, otherwise, they never would have accepted the authority of the Apostles, since authority depends upon being ACCEPTED, as well as being sent. Apparently, in the 21st century, one can just be a Scriptural scholar to know everything and actually apply it in one's life...

Cornelius said:
I have never said there are more than one truth. There is only one.
Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life:

There is only one truth - but what happens to your theory when several claim to have the TOTAL access to the truth, and yet disagree? I find this inability to see such a contradiction a bit strange...

Cornelius said:
You actually think that I am isolated ? The Bible clearly tells us not to stop coming together and I listen to the Word. :) I also have the five fold ministry that looks after me and they look after each other.We are many and we are everywhere. We are the Body of Christ.

I am sure the opponents of Paul and Peter said the same thing...

Yes, you are part of the Body of Christ - if I take your word for it - but you only possess part of the Truth that God has given. Some of your theology is mistaken, some of your teachings are wrong. That doesn't mean you are not part of the Body, it means that you do not possess the fullness of the Truth that God has given for us (of the Body) to know. God desires that we come to the knowledge of the Truth. When truth is REVEALED, man's reason cannot come to it alone. Thus, God has passed down this knowledge to a particular group of men, who have passed it along, generation to generation. This includes interpretation of Scriptures.

Cornelius said:
francisdesales said:
Again, you twist the words of Scriptures. Paul is among the first churchmen... Did he or did he not establish common churches with the SAME beliefs all over the Mediterranean vicinity? Did he not preach with authority, and establish authority among junior teachers of the faith, charging other Christians to heed and obey them? I presume you have read the Pastorals...

Of course he did.:) but never told us to be taught by the church. We have to build on the foundations of the apostles.........only. The teachers (one of the five fold ministry must teach ! )

The Church, teachers, preachers, etc, are those sent. The teachers are sent by those who have gone before them - thus "apostles". Sent. Thus, people are taught by the Church, those sent by Christ, who sent the Apostles, who sent successors. I do not find the Scriptures discussing people picking up a bible and sending themselves... or better yet, picking up a bible and claiming they have total access to all God's truths...

Cornelius said:
francisdesales said:
I don't have a problem holding fast to the word given to the Apostles and still taught in the Church established by Christ, where His Spirit guides to all truth... Or did the Spirit leave the Church, which existed long before the Reformation??? Can you point me to the Scriptures that tell me that the Spirit left the Church to start up another one???

Exactly and some actually belief they have a monopoly on it. The church is still the church as it was in the time of Paul.

Who thinks they have a monopoly on the teachings of the Apostles??? The Church's mission is to SPREAD the Gospel, not hold it as a secret and "monopolizing" it. The Church teaches the fullness, but that doesn't mean that other communities do not have some truth. That admittance speaks nowhere of a "monopoly"...

Cornelius said:
francisdesales said:
The Apostles and their successors provide the teaching of the Church... Such as the teaching of the Eucharist.
Lets not go there.

The point remains, whether we go there or not. We differ on the Biblical meaning of the Eucharist. Thus, one or both of us does not have the truth... Historical evidence will clearly note who is teaching innovation.

Cornelius said:
francisdesales said:
You are not in line with the Scriptures since you choose not to follow the successors who continue to teach the correct understanding of the Scriptures.

That would be your view of course. Its the same view held by Jehovahs Witnesses. And the Baptist and the Pentecostals and the Hindus and the Buddhists. All groups believe the others are wrong, therefor they are groups, which is the Greek word for heresies.(sects, denominations) all who have a name that separate themselves from the other, are part of it.

I don't think you or anyone else is completely wrong. I believe one can find MORE of God's truth in the Church, but that doesn't mean JV's or Baptists are all wrong. Even Buddhists have some of God's truth that He places within all men.

Cornelius said:
I want you to point our the scripture to me, that says that people are Christians even when they believe Jesus is an angel.

Who is Paul writing to in Hebrews? Followers of Mithra? I take it you have read Hebrews? He is clearly writing to people who have ALREADY been BAPTIZED and are indeed followers and believers in Christ. Is it your contention that Paul is writing to non-Christians? Is that your belief???

I hadn't intended to do such a study on something that is quite obvious to anyone reading Hebrews, but I will point out the pertinent passages so that you may ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten you, presuming He is indeed within you...

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Hebrews 1:1-4

Paul then goes on to teach these "us" Christians that their belief that Christ was akin to an angel is wrong. Now, think for a minute - this is in the very early stages of Christianity, and many converts from Judaism still had ideas about angels. Isn't it feasible for someone, with a Jewish background, to think of Christ as an angel, a messenger from God (which He was) - rather than God HIMSELF in the form of man??? And so these people, who had already been taught the Way, had a mistaken idea of Christ's identity.

How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard [him]; God also bearing [them] witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will? For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. Hebrews 2:3-5

Paul states, again, the WE. How shall WE escape, if we neglect so great salvation. Doesn't such verses make it obvious that Paul and the audience are fellow believers, not Judaizers or Gnostics? He is speaking to saved Christians who were mistaken on doctrine...

He continues, including his audience as part of the saved members of the People of God...

Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; Hebrews 3:1

Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; Hebrews 3:12-14

He continues...

Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left [us] of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard [it]. Hebrews 4:1-2

And then, with the verses I have already mentioned...

Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which [be] the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk [is] unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, [even] those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil
. Hebrews 5:12-14

It seems rather obvious Paul is speaking to fellow believers who are having a difficult time with what has been passed down... They do not possess the fullness of the truth - they continue to hold onto false teachings that they had assumed from their Jewish background, that Jesus was an angel.

Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. Hebrews 6:1-2

Do I need to continue??? Who but the obstinate would refuse to admit that Paul is speaking to Christians who have already been taught the Gospel and already have been baptized and enlightened - but were lacking in some of what they held to?

Cornelius said:
I agree with Paul. Nothing has changed. The whole church (and I use that term loosely ), in fact is far more immature today, then in his day.

I do not think you agree with Paul, but your idea of what Paul writes. The Church is immature for many reasons, among part of which is that people refuse to hear the pillar and foundation of the Truth.

Cornelius said:
Its not Scriptural, God ALWAYS calls His people OUT of error. Never are we told to stay inside. What you call Church has long time ago forgotten the meaning of that word. So has the rest of "church" Today its about men and what they think and decide.

You are presuming that the Church is in error, and thus, we must "come out". That would also show an incredible lack of trust in the promise of Christ, who promised to send His Spirit and lead the Church to all truth. Can you point to WHERE the Scriptures lead us to believe that the Spirit has LEFT the Church and there is a "need" to "come out"? This is all based upon the idea that the Church does not agree with YOU, and thus, the CHURCH is wrong, and you must "come out", since you are infallible...

is the promise given to the Church or the individual?

Cornelius said:
Its always come out ! Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come forth, my people, out of her, that ye have no fellowship with her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues:

Come out of sinfulness, not out of the Church... This is just another example of very poor exegesis... WHY would John write to "come out of the Church" when HE HIMSELF was teaching and writing letters to hold onto the Truth given by the Church???


Cornelius said:
I have been looking for reality in God for thirty years. I only found religion until God called me out.

This is very confusing to me, since the Bible speaks highly of "religion". I suppose it is your "search for perfection". A person looking for perfection here on this earth will not find it in an institution. Thus, he must turn inward - and being that the individual is very conceited and often blind to his own errors, believes he has "found" God in himself and thus puts aside any "religion". Well, I can empathize with your desire that the Church becomes perfected now. However, the Scriptures do not hold the Church up as a model of perfection until the end of time.

James tells us about pure religion - it is found in action. And the Church is quite active in serving the unfortunate in this world. In addition, the bible tells us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Paul was not saying that the individual is the pillar, but the Church as an organization. An organization has been given the power to bind and loosen, and so forth. Thus, I am highly suspect of the "God called me out of religion" scheme. We don't see this model in Scriptures.

Regards
 
Tina said:
francisdesales said:
RCC? We don't call ourselves that, so why would I make such a statement??? The term is from the "Deformation" era of the Church...

Are you an Orthodox Catholic ?

What do you mean by "orthodox"?

A member of the "Greek" or "Russian" Orthodox Church"?

Or a Catholic who is orthodox in belief - following what the Church teaches as the definition of "orthodox"?

I am the latter.

Regards
 
follower of Christ said:
francisdesales said:
Different Christians can teach part of the entire, full Gospel. There is no "full" and that's it. People can have access to part of the truths of our faith, which means they do not possess the fullness of the Gospel. Such could be considered attached to the Church, but in a separated and mysterious manner, part of the Church, but not possessing the fullness of the faith.

Regards
Wow....gee....I guess that ONE Christian family with a bible lost in a sea of Buddists is just crap out of luck, right FD ?
Too bad they werent born in the great USA where theres a church on every street corner so they could have the 'full' gospel..... :eyebrow

do you expect me to devote any time to such musings on your part?

I will respond to any serious discussions, but I will not be dragged into another discussion where smart-aleck comments are the norm.

Further comments will be seen as trolling and I will speak to the Moderators to prevent your taking over this thread.
 
francisdesales said:
What do you mean by "orthodox"?

A member of the "Greek" or "Russian" Orthodox Church"?

Or a Catholic who is orthodox in belief - following what the Church teaches as the definition of "orthodox"?

I am the latter.

There's one Orthodox Church in my country, and they called themselves Orthodox "Christians", not "Catholics" ...


:chin ..... :confused
 
Back
Top