Should Churches be non-denominational?

[follower of Christ]

Should Churches be non-denominational?

yes

 

[Adullam]

Without a divine birth from heaven we cannot see anything beyond the facade of this present life. It would seem that even those of us who have been enlightened find it difficult to focus beyond the present facade. Why are we so easily distracted?

 

[dadof10]

Wikipedia? This is your source? I guess you couldn’t get any of the hundreds of searchable websites that post the Catechism to work for ya, huh? Are your Jack Chick tracts in storage? OK, whatever. This article doesn’t come close to proving your absurd claims anyway, so let’s get started.

(BTW, it’s good form to paste the link for your source, which you didn’t do. That way people won’t question your motives.)

2/3/4 are actually ONE statement

No, actually, they aren’t.

Falsehood 2) Where is this taught: "Just put one great guy at the very top and make him responsible for their souls.â€Â

To be taken seriously, you have to PROVE, using CATHOLIC SOURCES that the “great guy at the very top†is “responsible for†our souls.

Falsehood 3) Where is it taught that we are not responsible for our own souls?

Although this one comes close to the one above it’s not the same. To make this ridiculous claim, you have to prove that someone (or no one) else is responsible for our souls. I wouldn’t necessarily have to be the “guy at the very topâ€Â. You have to prove that Catholic teaching states “we are not responsible for our own soulsâ€Â.

Falsehood 4) Where is this taught: "Now they can just relax, because God will only be asking the top guy questions, because the rest only "followed orders"

This speaks for itself, and is also different from the other two. Where does Catholic theology make the claim that questions will be asked by God, or that they will only be asked of the Pope?

based on the common knowledge that the RCC makes the doctrine and the faithful to the Church, adheres to it.

Yeah, kinda like Acts 15. Those power hungry apostles and elders in Jerusalem, making doctrine and forcing all the churches that Paul visited to OBEY it…Sheesh, of all the nerve…And, as far as we know, they all just “followed ordersâ€Â…What a bunch of mindless sheep…They should be ignoring this council, reading Scripture for themselves and each coming to their own “Holy Spirit†guided conclusion, then starting their own rival church.

All kidding aside, Acts 15 is the Biblical model when a doctrinal dispute arises, which you are rejecting. Where is the Biblical model of each individual believer reading Scripture and being personally led to doctrinal truth by the Holy Spirit?

So when we look at their view of the pope, we see that he is given the same power of revelation as the writers of the Bible. Read it for yourself.

Papal infallibility is the dogma in Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is
preserved from even the possibility of error[1] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the
universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation,

The authors of Scripture were men who were kept from error by the Holy Spirit while writing Scripture. The apostles and elders were men who were kept from error when they met at the first council of Jerusalem. The Pope in union with the bishops are preserved from error in RARE CASES too. This is a singular, negative (“kept fromâ€Â) gift from God to the faithful and has nothing to do with the Popes personal holiness, as the Wikipedia article goes on to say. This does not prove your point. Remember what you are trying (pitifully) to “proveâ€Â.

Where does this paragraph make the claim that the Church teaches:

“Just put one great guy at the very top and make him responsible for their souls�

Or:

“We are not responsible for our own souls�

Or:

“God will only be asking the top guy questions, because the rest only "followed orders"?

From the above paragraph you conclude:

(So all he says , they MUST believe )

Did you even read the article that you posted? Let me help you out.

“This dogma, however, does not state…that he is necessarily free of error, even when speaking in his official capacity, outside the specific contexts in which the dogma applies.â€Â

“ALL he says, they MUST believe�??? Your own article directly contradicts you. I’m embarrassed for you.

Pretty feeble first attempt, but maybe the next paragraph will prove your points, huh?

or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. (ALL Christians must be intimately
connected to divine revelation, and not look to another man to tell them about his connection .
Catholics hand over the responsibility to the pope for their revelational knowledge )

How does “Dogmatic teaching†being “intimately connected to divine revelationâ€Â, negate each individual Christian striving to be “intimately connected…â€Â? Where does this say the two are mutually exclusive? Don’t you think doctrine should be connected to “divine revelation†along with individual believers? Seems like a no-brainer. Again, how does this prove your points?

0 for 2, but you still have some time left on the clock.

It is also taught that the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church, as sensus fidelium, to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics. This dogma, however, does not state either (1) that the Pope cannot commit sin in his own personal life nor (2) that he is necessarily free of error, even when speaking in his official capacity, outside the specific contexts in which the dogma applies.

Yes, WILL BE, just like in Acts 15-16. The decisions made in Jerusalem were revealed doctrine and as such, “will be†believed. This is the Biblical model, and again, this does not prove any of your three points above.

This doctrine was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1870. According to Catholic theology, there are several concepts important to the understanding of infallible, divine revelation: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Sacred Magisterium

Here I must step in because the authors (it could be anyone) are not accurately expressing Catholic theology. I’ll let the Catechism speak for itself:

84 The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful."

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."
87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me", the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

You’ll notice four things:
1)The “deposit of faith†does not include the Magisterium per se. It is the interpreter of the deposit of faith.
2)The “deposit of faith†is sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture, called also the “Word of Godâ€Â.
3)The Magisterium (the Pope in union with the bishops) is the SERVANT of the Word of God, both oral and written.
4)This still doesn’t prove ANY of your points, even if you accept only the Wikipedia quote and reject the ACTUAL TEACHING of the Church.

(Here is where Satan…[blah, blah, blah, anti-Catholic rhetoric]…Today you cannot tell a Catholic that they must only look to the Word , because it has been decided FOR them, that this is not so.

Yes, it was decided for them by Jesus and the Apostles who NEVER TAUGHT SOLA-SCRIPTURA, unless you can be the first person in history to find this little gem in Scripture…Didn’t think so…

They have taught to accept the error, BY THE ERROR. But they are guilty as individuals for shifting the respocibility ontp the "Church" and not reading the Bible for themselves. If they did come to another conclusion, that indeed the pope cannot tell them these things and that its ONLY SCRIPTURE, then they would not be able to stay in that denomination.)

You’re right. When people accept the unbiblical, heretical doctrine of sola-scriptura, they cannot stay in the Church that Christ founded. If some did not accept the precepts handed on to them by the first council of Jerusalem, they would probably “not be able to stay†either.

The infallible teachings of the Pope are part of the Sacred Magisterium, which also consists of ecumenical councils and the "ordinary and universal magisterium". In Catholic theology, papal
infallibility is one of the channels of the infallibility of the Church. The infallible teachings of the
Pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture. Papal
infallibility does not signify that the Pope is impeccable, i.e., that he is specially exempt from liability to sin.

Notice "or". Its because when we look at their system, the "Sacred Tradition" can indeed be the
deciding factor over the Scripture . Again ,…[ blah…blah…more anti-Catholic blathering]..â€Â

You do realize that Wikipedia is editable by anyone with access to a computer, right? LITERALLY anyone with a computer. That’s OK, I fixed it. Here is what the article says now:

The infallible teachings of the Pope, which are the teachings of Jesus Christ Himself, are part of the Sacred Magisterium, which was founded by Jesus, which also consists of ecumenical councils and the "ordinary and universal magisterium" which are Guided by the Holy Spirit. In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is one of the channels of the infallibility of the Church, founded by Jesus Christ and Guided by the Holy Spirit. The infallible teachings of the Pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition AND Sacred Scripture. Papal infallibility does not signify that the Pope is impeccable, i.e., that he is specially exempt from liability to sin. The Protestant Reformation is heresy.

There…Fixed to reflect the “truthâ€Â.

Because the UNKNOWN AUTHOR (or authors) put(s) an “or†in a sentence does not mean the Church teaches Tradition can be over Scripture. There are many Church documents that unequivocally claim that Scripture and Tradition cannot contradict. The point he or she was trying to make was that the teachings of the Pope must not contradict other revealed Truth, either in oral OR written form. You are trying too hard to find controversy that isn’t there. This doesn’t prove your points either, sorry.

So, let’s recap. 0-4, which means you need to take back the anti-Catholic whoppers you have posted and apologize to retain any semblance ofredibility.

I can carry on , but in reality I have little interest in the workings of the sects.But I can hammer the point if you want me to.

To “hammer†the point you’ll need an actual hammer, not a caricature of one. All you’ve given me is rhetoric, but you can keep trying if you want to and I’ll respond as time permits. Remember what you’re trying to “prove†and stick to the subject.

This thread has now become a Catholic defending their denomination thread .

Yep, right after it became a thread for sensationally dishonest, anti-Catholic bigotry.

 

[dadof10]

Would you defend your denomination if someone twisted what your pastor taught, in an attempt at humor? Jesus called a spade a spade, and so have I.

Exactly.

You will defend your denomination even if they are wrong.

Jesus called a spade a spade when people were going against the Word and honoring religion. He did exactly the opposite of what you are doing, so you are not allowed to use Him as your example, if you are not honoring Him above your religion.

Where is this again in the bible? You proclaim a "bible only" theology, but it is interesting how often you make statements that are not found in the Bible, but are the "gospel of Cornelius", one different than found in the Bible...

...Where does Jesus condemn religion or rituals for the sake of religion or rituals? If you would read the Gospels again for the first time, you'd find they say something different. Jesus condemns outward ONLY rituals. Rituals that do not move the heart (and reliance on these outward signs only) are pointless. But Jesus did NOT come to tear down the Law, which includes the various rituals of Judaism. Not one iota. His teachings clearly point to taking an inner meaning to the rituals. But being that you have only a superficial understanding of God's teachings, it is easy to see why you make such mistakes.

 

[Adullam]

Are we to be led by the Spirit, or led by those who claim to be led by the Spirit....?

The first are the sons of God. The second are cult members. :help

Are we to be followers or followers of followers? Are we of Luther, Calvin or Rome? Are we set apart through our theories, dogmas or techniques? Haven't we learned anything through the example of carnal reasoning recorded in the book of Corinthians? Must we compare only with others?

Denominations are like memorials to a particular truth that many get stuck on. They become like gravestones to they that stop there. But the truth is alive and quickens that which was previously dead.

There is no other Mediator between God and man than Jesus Christ. The living Christ, not just the historical Christ. The One through whom we presently live and move and have our being! Now is the eternal moment. Now! All the good works on earth cannot fill in the gap between ourselves and God. We need to look to Christ Himself. Cursed is He that looks to man and trusts him....but blessed is he that trusts in the Lord. No one group can claim an exclusive access to God. We can, however, become totally consumed by God so that we are found in Him. He is a consuming Fire. Our life, then, is hid in Christ.

 

[dadof10]

As for the RCC, let's just face it. For starters, I really wonder what the Pope does on a daily basis. He appears to be more of a politician, going around giving speeches in his white costume and a crown on his head on his resplendent PopeMobile.

Please don't get me wrong ... I do hold high respect for him, but then again, come to think of it, I don't think I have read any reports of him praying for people, healing the sick, helping the needy, raising the dead, delivering the demon-possessed, reaching out to lost souls, baptizing people .... and so on ..... quite a far cry from Mother Theresa !

The Pope is involved in some of the above that you mention. I hadn't heard of any attempted resusitations. It is likely that you don't follow the daily schedule of the Pope, or the Vatican newspapers that report what he does. If you like, you can do the research yourself on google or the Vatican website...

One of THE primary missions of the Pope is to preach the Gospel. He does this daily, and at times, writes encyclicals for the Christians churches that are amazingly poignant. I realize you are not catholic, but you must admit that what he teaches crosses 'denominational' lines in many cases. He does more for the Church of Christ than all other teachers of our separated brothers combined in the world, since he is recognized as the visible spiritual leader of a huge segment of the world's population. Thus, his particular words are reported and spread by the media. Other leaders, significant in their little corner of the world, no doubt, will never get a catholic, or universal message across to the world like the Pope. No doubt, Christ knew what He was doing when He first instructed Peter (and his successors) to feed His sheep... The Pope does a good job of doing just that by teaching against the ways of the world and the culture of death. He does this with an unwavering stance that is unmatched in the non-catholic Christian world.

And of course, the Catholic Church is teaching a whole lot of things that are non-biblical and anti-biblical, but that's another story. Actually I'm not keen to get into all these arguments, really .... It's just a different form of Christianity, I guess !

yes, we say the same about you, as well...!

But being that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth, I think we can judge which is actually "Christianity" in its "proper" form.

Regards

Again. Thanks Joe, time's getting short for me lately and I can't respond to everyone.

 

[dadof10]

Are we to be led by the Spirit, or led by those who claim to be led by the Spirit....?

The first are the sons of God. The second are cult members. :help

Huh? If I recall Paul claimed to be "led by the Spirit". Are all who follow HIS teaching "cult members"?

 

[francisdesales]

The Ecclesia is the divine community on earth. It is very small. Where 2 or 3 (or more) disciples come together based on the divine life in Christ.....there and only there....is the church. It follows the difficult narrow way of self-denial for the sake of obedience to the will of God. If Christ be not present both within and among the brethren, then it cannot be defined as the church of Christ. It testifies of the Way, the truth and the life....in both word and deed.

It is according to life...spiritual life in the divine reality. It is led by the Spirit. It is nurtured in the Spirit. It is edified in the Spirit. It is the brotherhood of Jesus Christ. It is not understood nor "visible" to the worldling...except for the love, peace and joy that emanate naturally (supernaturally) from the gathering of saints. We shall know them by their love. It is the communion of saints. It is not a place, as the kingdom of God is not a place. It is a spiritual reality. It is a light to the world.

The ecclesia is known in the world by the reputation of individual Spirit-filled ambassadors of Christ. He is one of them, they will say! The coming together of these in community becomes the pillar and ground of the truth in the region where they abide. They are a lasting beacon in the darkness of the cities. They lay down their lives for Christ and each other. The world cannot know the intimacy and fellowship of the ecclesia since it exposes the darkness they live in....unless they likewise repent and turn to the living God.


The Ecclesia makes disciples, bringing them into the same light and love that is their fellowship with one another. A disciple forsakes all to be a follower of Jesus Christ. Few indeed will love to the degree that dicispleship commands. Jesus is worthy of our complete devotion. He must be first. We must forsake our own lives for His. Many are called, but few are chosen.

All an idealized version of the Church, to be fully realized only at the end of time. Even during the time of Sacred Scriptures, this was rarely the actual condition of the church. The very writing of Scriptures was out of necessity of the Ecclesia requiring direction from men in authority - which naturally points to a visible church, not an idealized way of life independent from the Ecclesia proper.

The Church is not 2 or 3 guys sitting around eating chicken wings over Bible studies, no matter how holy they think they are... You present only part of the story. Ecclesia INCLUDES earthly organization, authority, discipline, creeds, cult, code and other such politically incorrect terms that make the "idealized church" throw their hands up in the air in their sense of affronted piety in a wistful pining for the days that, frankly, never existed.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Again. Thanks Joe, time's getting short for me lately and I can't respond to everyone.

I was wondering where you've been lately!

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Are we to be led by the Spirit, or led by those who claim to be led by the Spirit....?

The first are the sons of God. The second are cult members. :help

Perhaps you need to throw away that Bible and let God "speak" to you directly...???

The writers of Scriptures also claimed the very same thing, men who claim to have been led by the Spirit. The Bible itself is not self-authenticating as the Word of God. The individual books of the NT do not call themselves "the Word of God", with the possible exception of Revelation. Thus, you are being led by people who claim to have been led by the Spirit...

Be careful when you throw away the baby with the bathwater...

 

[francisdesales]

You’ll notice four things:
1)The “deposit of faith†does not include the Magisterium per se. It is the interpreter of the deposit of faith.
2)The “deposit of faith†is sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture, called also the “Word of Godâ€Â.
3)The Magisterium (the Pope in union with the bishops) is the SERVANT of the Word of God, both oral and written.
4)This still doesn’t prove ANY of your points, even if you accept only the Wikipedia quote and reject the ACTUAL TEACHING of the Church.

Very good explanation to those who have not read the Catechism...

Yes, it was decided for them by Jesus and the Apostles who NEVER TAUGHT SOLA-SCRIPTURA, unless you can be the first person in history to find this little gem in Scripture…Didn’t think so…

good guess... :P

and then he'll go on to say how "I only follow the Bible"...

:mad

You’re right. When people accept the unbiblical, heretical doctrine of sola-scriptura, they cannot stay in the Church that Christ founded. If some did not accept the precepts handed on to them by the first council of Jerusalem, they would probably “not be able to stay†either.

EXACTLY the situation with what Paul calls the "Judaizers" - Christians who demanded that pagan converts uphold Jewish cultic teachings... They became the first Protestants...

You do realize that Wikipedia is editable by anyone with access to a computer, right? LITERALLY anyone with a computer. That’s OK, I fixed it. Here is what the article says now:

The infallible teachings of the Pope, which are the teachings of Jesus Christ Himself, are part of the Sacred Magisterium, which was founded by Jesus, which also consists of ecumenical councils and the "ordinary and universal magisterium" which are Guided by the Holy Spirit. In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is one of the channels of the infallibility of the Church, founded by Jesus Christ and Guided by the Holy Spirit. The infallible teachings of the Pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition AND Sacred Scripture. Papal infallibility does not signify that the Pope is impeccable, i.e., that he is specially exempt from liability to sin. The Protestant Reformation is heresy.

There…Fixed to reflect the “truthâ€Â.

I literally laughed out loud when I read the last sentence!

So, let’s recap. 0-4, which means you need to take back the anti-Catholic whoppers you have posted and apologize to retain any semblance of credibility.

This won't happen. He'll do the usual tactic of squirming away only to come back with the same nonsense a few months later, hoping we or another won't catch his false teachings... Case in point: his ridiculous explanation of "Nicolaitans", an explanation unheard of by men who actually spoke Greek and were there! That seems to be par for the course for such popettes who claim infallibility for themselves...

Yep, right after it became a thread for sensationally dishonest, anti-Catholic bigotry.

Good job, Dad. Eliminating hostile arguments with humor is much more fun to read.

Regards

 

[dadof10]

Again. Thanks Joe, time's getting short for me lately and I can't respond to everyone.

I was wondering where you've been lately!

Regards

4th and 5th Grade football practice, mostly. I'm a coach and practice, until just recently, went 2 hrs. a day, 5 days a week. I also had to take a second job to make ends meet. Poor me...

 

[Adullam]

Are we to be led by the Spirit, or led by those who claim to be led by the Spirit....?

The first are the sons of God. The second are cult members. :help

Huh? If I recall Paul claimed to be "led by the Spirit". Are all who follow HIS teaching "cult members"?

Paul led others to Christ. Just as true disciples do today. We don't have people follow us...only be led by our example. We take seekers to our Master. The Corinthians thought as you do.

Those who merely follow Paul's teachings without the Spirit could be called cult members, yes! We are not to follow a man but the Lord. If a man does not lead us to be led by the Spirit ourselves then that one is a cult leader.

 

[francisdesales]

Again. Thanks Joe, time's getting short for me lately and I can't respond to everyone.

I was wondering where you've been lately!

Regards

4th and 5th Grade football practice, mostly. I'm a coach and practice, until just recently, went 2 hrs. a day, 5 days a week. I also had to take a second job to make ends meet. Poor me...

Oh, yea, I remember those days! God bless you for the time you donate for others.

Regards

 

[dadof10]

You’re right. When people accept the unbiblical, heretical doctrine of sola-scriptura, they cannot stay in the Church that Christ founded. If some did not accept the precepts handed on to them by the first council of Jerusalem, they would probably “not be able to stay†either.

EXACTLY the situation with what Paul calls the "Judaizers" - Christians who demanded that pagan converts uphold Jewish cultic teachings... They became the first Protestants...

:biglol

Yep, right after it became a thread for sensationally dishonest, anti-Catholic bigotry.

Good job, Dad. Eliminating hostile arguments with humor is much more fun to read.

Regards

Thanks, Joe. God bless.

 

[Adullam]

Are we to be led by the Spirit, or led by those who claim to be led by the Spirit....?

The first are the sons of God. The second are cult members. :help

Perhaps you need to throw away that Bible and let God "speak" to you directly...???

The writers of Scriptures also claimed the very same thing, men who claim to have been led by the Spirit. The Bible itself is not self-authenticating as the Word of God. The individual books of the NT do not call themselves "the Word of God", with the possible exception of Revelation. Thus, you are being led by people who claim to have been led by the Spirit...

Be careful when you throw away the baby with the bathwater...

The purpose of the bible is to connect people to the living God. The purpose of the gospel is a reconciliation with the Father. Poetry is nice and writings can be beneficial, but the truth is meant to be incarnated in the believer not just accepted with the mind. Have you never heard of the new creation in Christ?

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."

This, then, is the beginning of entrance into the spiritual reality. A reality that the bible testifies of.

 

[francisdesales]

The purpose of the bible is to connect people to the living God.

I would say that "cult" does it even more, as we EXPERIENCE the living God through worship.

Clearly, the bible does this, but does not exclusively connect people to God. So does the community, worship, private prayer, and interaction with the poor and helpless (see mat 25, for example)

The purpose of the gospel is a reconciliation with the Father.

Soteriology is not the Gospel, my friend. Don't turn the Good News into a salvation system. The Gospel is that Jesus Christ is Lord - and that proclamation has several particular meanings that many "pseudo Christians" do not believe, such as Jesus Christ is God...

Poetry is nice and writings can be beneficial, but the truth is meant to be incarnated in the believer not just accepted with the mind. Have you never heard of the new creation in Christ?

Of course. Your point? Are you saying that people within an institution are automatically prevented, by definition, from being a new creation in Christ? I don't recall that being a stumbling stone in the bible...

This, then, is the beginning of entrance into the spiritual reality. A reality that the bible testifies of.

Men testified and continue to testify to spiritual realities... Depending on their authority, they are deemed believable or not. Again, I ask for your point.

Regards

 

[Adullam]

The apostle Paul commended those in Berea who checked out the teachings of Paul with the written words from God found in the Scriptures. Paul's goal was not to be obeyed or personally respected...he wanted the grace that was within him to be transmitted to others. Paul was looking for fellowship in the Spirit. John also was looking for fellowship in the Spirit.

3That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

4And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

Rather than setting up an earthly ecclesiastical entity, the apostles were looking to expand the kingdom of God. A kingdom based on fellowship in the light of heaven. A fellowship of love.

Paul sought only to bring himself and others to Christ. Everything else he counted as dung.

"We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ."

"Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,"

So Paul only saw himself as a fellow athlete that was running the race of faith just as we are! There is no difference. Those who run together with Paul to gain Christ are the brethren. We are not running to gain or win Paul.

 

[Adullam]

The purpose of the bible is to connect people to the living God.

I would say that "cult" does it even more, as we EXPERIENCE the living God through worship.

Clearly, the bible does this, but does not exclusively connect people to God. So does the community, worship, private prayer, and interaction with the poor and helpless (see mat 25, for example)

All religions feel closer to the divinity through their activities. Otherwise why the activities? But we are not human doings but human BEINGS. In the Spirit we are always close to God...breathing, eating, drinking....these are spiritual activities if you are truly IN Christ. It is about abiding not working.

The purpose of the gospel is a reconciliation with the Father.

Soteriology is not the Gospel, my friend. Don't turn the Good News into a salvation system. The Gospel is that Jesus Christ is Lord - and that proclamation has several particular meanings that many "pseudo Christians" do not believe, such as Jesus Christ is God...

Don't turn the gospel into an intergalactic messaging system of things that are happening in a parallel universe that have no effect on us.

"And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;"

Poetry is nice and writings can be beneficial, but the truth is meant to be incarnated in the believer not just accepted with the mind. Have you never heard of the new creation in Christ?

Of course. Your point? Are you saying that people within an institution are automatically prevented, by definition, from being a new creation in Christ? I don't recall that being a stumbling stone in the bible...

You are trying to defend the rights of an institution instead of coming humbly to the truth yourself.

This, then, is the beginning of entrance into the spiritual reality. A reality that the bible testifies of.

Men testified and continue to testify to spiritual realities... Depending on their authority, they are deemed believable or not. Again, I ask for your point.

Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Regards

 

[Brother Lionel]

It doesnt matter if there religious practices are according to the bible in its complete context.