What's new
By:
Filters
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!

Truth

Former Christian said:
Warhorse

Good question. That's why I became a Former Christian. Couldn't live the lie anymore.

FC
Click to expand...
Friend try one more time,ask God to forgive you for doubting and ask Jesus to be your Saviour,that road you are taking has a drop off not far away and it lands you into the torment of hell. Your life is in the balance,try AGAIN.
 
former?? for what?
or uhh.

as there is one truth
there is one believe
as one earth
as one conscience

wether you where told or not what is truth doesnt really matter since truth just is , as it is.

your interpretation of it though may be some, of, whatever.

often in songs they sing truth hurst or so.
but i gues real truth will only be factual.
as to where you go think and consider it's no longer truth untill the action that follows. as in factual action.

it is said 'god never lies', now that doesnt necesarally have to be the biblical god only..

truth is factual touchable when it's real.
otherwise it's no truth.

it's real simple and nothing to fear for really.
what you can fear for in combination with truth might be, your own conscience if you thought wrong'.

for the rest i think it's bad to put "truth" in a position to discuss, since truth isnt discussable, and on the long run te real' truth remains..
so as long as you dindt murder a man or so

dont fear truth.
and there is no wrong side unless you want to discuss truth mentally which factually is and can or will be considerred fantasy as long as it goes without a word spoken. still then the wrong eside of truth doesnt really exist...

so dont worrie.

you tell me other truth?
 
Former Christian said:
That's why I became a Former Christian. Couldn't live the lie anymore.
Click to expand...


Trying to understand what you are saying.

"What would you say was the lie (in your beliefs, in your lifestyle) that you couldn't live anymore?"

Just for clarity, that's all.


Be blessed, Stay blessed, and be Bold!
 
Bonairos

You said “Trying to understand what you are saying. What would you say was the lie (in your beliefs, in your lifestyle) that you couldn't live anymore? Just for clarity, that's all.â€

I have chosen to respond to your post because you seem to be more open minded and maybe a little more concerned than most.

I would like to know what Warhorse means by “real Christianâ€. The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that they are real Christians, that they are the only real Christians. The Catholics used to believe that they were the only real Christians before Vatican II. Now they include Protestants by virtue of their baptism. I have met a lot of Fundamentalist and Evangelical Protestant Christians who believe that only those who believe as they do are the only real Christians.

There is more than one on this forum who has chosen to judge my eternal destiny without knowing anything about me other than I now refer to myself as a former Christian. They don’t know why. Nor, apparently, do they care to know why. How Christian of them. Christians sin all the time while having the Spirit in them. Some Christians admit it, and 1 John 1:9 provides for those who admit they are sinners. Paul said, “If we live by the Spirit, we should also walk by the Spirit†(Gal 5:25). Paul recognized that there are those who live by the Spirit, but are not walking by the Spirit, and he encourages them to try to bring their walk in line with their life. The Christian who sins is living by the Spirit, but not walking by the Spirit. He is walking by the flesh. But these people would judge such a one a nonbeliever. I have to ask who is their God, the God of the Bible who can know what is in the hearts of men or themselves who can not?

What of the lost sheep that Jesus talks about (Mt 12)? He did not say that it was a goat he was going after. And he was in a better position than anyone to know the difference. He called the sheep a sheep even though it was lost. The point is he cared enough to search for the lost sheep and bring it back to the safety of the fold. Paul said, “But God demonstrates his own love toward us that while still being sinners, Christ died on our behalf†(Rom 5:8). If I was once in Christ, which I believe is as true for me as for anyone making that claim in Christianity, then I am still in Christ in spite of what anyone may think, including myself. But then, that may just be my Protestant interpretation. I was a Protestant Christian who believed in eternal security. Paul said, “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for usâ€. (Rom 8:33-34, KJV) Why would any Christian want to replace Christ as the rightful judge?

I have been warned by the Moderators that I am not posting properly. In that light, I went back and reread the Terms of Service. I misunderstood it completely in my first reading. I did not realize that this was a forum that catered to a specific brand of Protestant Christian thinking. The fact that there are Atheists and Catholics here confused me. When it refers to Biblical and Historical Christianity, it is referring to a limited Protestant interpretation of what that entails.

In agreement with the Protestantism that I originally was a part of, Historical Christianity refers to the Eastern Orthodox or the Roman Catholics and Biblical Christianity refers to Protestants, Protestants who believe in Sola Scriptura. There was no mixture of the two. Catholics can rightly consider themselves to be Biblical in an interpretational sense and Historical because they can trace the history of their Church back to the first century. Protestants can consider themselves Biblical, but not historical. Protestants can consider themselves to be Apostolic by virtue of their relationship with the Bible or the teachings of the Apostles. But they can’t trace their denominations existence prior to the sixteenth century. They can only claim a connection to the Church through their historical connection to the Western Church. The same as Roman Catholicism. But it is commonly agreed that Protestantism began with Martin Luther who was excommunicated from the Western Church. And the Catholic Church has never renounced that excommunication, even though they currently consider Protestants to be “separated brethrenâ€.

This forum is called a “Christian forumâ€. I assumed that it meant what it said, that it represented all Christians. And when I first read the terms of Service, I read into it my own understanding of the terminology used. I came here in hopes of renewing my faith through something that would be said that would help me to deal with what I knew to be true about Christianity. Instead I found it to be reminiscent of what led me to my present position in the first place. It seems inconceivable to me that the God of Christianity would lead me to a forum that would have the effect of corroborating my position concerning Christianity. So I conclude that I must have come here all by myself through my own ignorance.

Christians believe that Christianity, or rather their own denomination of Christianity, represents Biblical truth. The more I studied the Bible, the more I realized that Christianity and its denominations represents only its own truth. The Church as it is portrayed in the Bible certainly isn’t the same as any denomination of Christianity. One reason given is that it isn’t suppose to be the same because the Bible was written 2000+ years ago. What is seen today is the Church as it exists in the twenty first century. That is typically a Catholic defense of its present form of existence, though I have also heard Protestants use the same defense. If the Bible is truly from God, written to have meaning for all believers regardless of the era in which they live, then time shouldn’t matter. Nothing has changed. Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Humanity only gives the appearance of change through cultural differences. But its nature hasn’t changed. That defense is really an excuse for conforming the Church to the world so as to appease opposition. As the world in Adam can only achieve unity through institutions that include their laws governing the institution, so also the denominations of Christianity. The doctrines are the laws of the Christian institutions. The Spirit need not apply, in spite of the claim of many that unity in the Spirit and in their doctrines is the same thing. I believe that Christians are so entrenched in this Tradition that I can no longer believe the lie that Christianity represents Biblical truth.

I portray myself as an Atheist, but this is not entirely true. At least not yet. Actually what I believe about God, Jesus Christ and the Bible is still up in the air. An Atheist is not what I desire to be. But so far Christians have not been any help in pulling me back from the boundary line between Atheism and Theism. Except in rare instances, they have tended to push me toward the other side of the boundary, as if my very presence is a threat to them. And if their faith is in the truth of a denomination more than Biblical truth, then maybe it is.

I know there are Atheists here. I would like to hear from them as to how they are able to deal with the laws of this forum that I am accused of breaking. I have only posted according to how I believe at this time.

In spite of what many think on this forum, I have said nothing against the Bible or what it portrays. My emphasis has always been on the problem that brought me to my present position. Jesus and Paul both were against division among believers (John 17, 1 Cor 1, Eph 4). But Christianity is denominational in nature, and has been overtly denominational since the fourth century. That is, the nature of Christianity includes division. Paul says that division is out of the flesh (Gal 5). If Paul speaks truly, then what is Christianity out of? The Terms of Service of this forum is against this conclusion or any mention of it. That is the end of discussion on this forum. And that basically nullifies my whole purpose for being here. Apparently, the purpose of this forum is not to help anybody, but rather to debate what are considered acceptable points of view. I find it hard to believe that Francisdesales’ Catholic point of view and abrasive way of presenting it is considered acceptable and mine is not.

Eventide said to me, “If you'd like to share how that the living and powerful word of God is undeniably the truth then that would be fine.. although it's painfully obvious that this is not your intent here.†The thread is called, “Ye shall know the truth... absolute proof that the Bible is the word of God !†My last post there was rather extensive and you might find it of help.

More to follow.

FC
 
Bonairos

In response to Eventide, I agree that you are within your rights to insist that I stay within the boundaries of your thread, And you are right to say that I shouldn’t even have posted on your thread to begin with. Because I believe that, in a practical sense, Christians who believe in their own denominational form of Christianity do not believe that the Bible is the living and powerful word of God. They believe that the doctrinal standard of their denomination is the living and powerful word of God. And I believe that it is impossible to prove that the Bible is the word of God rather than the word of men. The Bible is a book of experience. Only those who experience the same life that the Biblical writers experienced and write about can know for sure that the Bible is the word of God. The seekers must exercise faith that the Bible is the word of God and must exercise faith in Jesus Christ so as to be in Christ and experience the life in Christ before they can have the assurance that the Bible is indeed the word of God. For every piece of evidence that a Christian might present that the Bible is the word of God, the Atheist has a counter piece of evidence that is just as valid.

As a Protestant Christian I honestly believed that the Bible is the word of God, that the source of the Bible is God alone, not the Church as Catholicism claims. And I believed that everything that it claims is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It is the nature of Christianity and the varied truths of Christians who also believe that the Bible is the word of God that makes me currently have doubts that the Bible is actually from God. But it is my continued hope that it is not the Bible itself that is the problem, but rather the Christians themselves who are interpreting it instead of just believing what the Bible says.

Christians believe in the proverb that says that the only way to properly understand the Bible is through proper interpretation. But interpretation is out of the mind of men. And there are as many ways to interpret the Bible as there denominations of Christianity. It is interpretations authoritatively understood that are the source of the distinctions of the various denominations of Christianity. It is interpretations that formed the first century Traditions of men that Jesus opposed.

From what I read in the Bible, the only valid authoritative interpreter of the Bible is the head of the Church or Jesus Christ. And he teaches the Church members through their contact with the Spirit of God, through their own human spirit. But what we find in Christianity is the authority of imperfect and mortal Bible interpreters. What we find in Christianity is war between Christian factions doctrinally speaking, and sometimes more than doctrinally speaking. The factional disagreements is what fuels forums, even this one. But this is considered just more talk against Biblical and historical Christianity on this forum. I concede that the denominational nature of Christianity is historical. But I don’t see how anyone can present evidence that it is Biblical. Anyone who can present such evidence without resorting to Biblical interpretation would certainly solve the problem that I have with Christianity.

I may still be guilty of Biblical interpretation myself, but at least I realize that it is the wrong way to understand the Bible. We are serving two masters when we try to mingle the teaching of Christ with our own interpretations. We either believe the Bible alone unembellished by interpretations or we believe the interpretations. It is impossible to believe both. Christians have become convinced that the Bible and the interpretations of the Bible are one and the same. And they have become convinced that the interpretations of the Bible as espoused in their own denominations is doctrinal truth. And they have become convinced that their unity is in the doctrinal interpretations rather than in the Spirit as Paul said (Eph 4). And the result is Christianity with its many denominations.

Even the term Christian used as a self description is based on an interpretation of the Bible. The New Testament Greek and the English translations of that Greek agree that Acts 11:26 says, “And the disciples were called Christians first in Antiochâ€. But Christians believe in their own interpretation of that verse, which is, “And the disciples called themselves Christians first in Antiochâ€. And based on that interpretation they call themselves Christians, and their various denominations are together referred to as Christianity, a term derived from Christian. Even though no Biblical writer ever called himself a Christian, nor a disciple for that matter. They just referred to themselves as being in Christ or they referred to the relationship that they had with Christ through the Spirit.

There are only two other references that include the term Christian. Acts 26:28 says, “Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian†(KJV). Agrippa is using terminology that is common at the time. Paul doesn’t call himself a Christian. In his answer he replies, “And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.†He does not say, “I wish you were a Christian like meâ€. Peter in 1 Peter 4:16 says, “Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf†(KJV). Peter neither calls himself or his readers Christians, but only says that they are suffering as Christians. That is the common term used by unbelievers for those who associate themselves with Christ. He only says that they are partaker of Christ’s sufferings because they are being reproached for the name of Christ. That is clear in the context (1 Pe 4:12-19) wherein he contrasts suffering with Christ with suffering for evil doing.

Anyone can be a follower or a learner (disciple). Religious leaders and philosophers have followers and disciples. Patriots are followers and disciples of their nation.

Everyone is in Adam. But only those who are also in Christ are the ones who are Saved by virtue of their being in Christ (Rom 5-6). Now I ask you. Would you rather be a follower of a Jewish religious philosopher whom even the Jews rejected, or would you rather be in the Christ who is the provision chosen by God for Salvation of humanity from the effects of the fall of Adam? Would you rather continue to be a part of the old creation as a Christian, or would you rather be a part of the new creation in Christ?

Christians, in a practical sense, by their name and by their continued adherence to a denomination of Christianity are living as if they are a part of the old creation, and they believe in the doctrinal standards of their denomination more than in the Bible. I do not say that they do this intentionally. It is in their Tradition.

I have most recently attended the Catholic Mass and the Services of Grace Community Church where the renowned Evangelical Protestant Bible teacher John MacArthur is the chief Pastor. But I am a member of neither Church. In fact, I can’t be due to my disagreement with portions of their doctrinal standards. Among the doctrines that must agreed to in order to be a Catholic is that we can communicate with the dead. I don’t agree with that doctrine because there is no such doctrine in the Bible. It is among their historically developed doctrines. Among the doctrines that must be agreed to in order to be a member of Grace Community Church includes the doctrine of Lordship Salvation. I don’t agree with that doctrine because I see a different teaching in the Bible. In 1 Corinthians, for example, Paul never referred to anyone in Corinth as not being a nonbeliever. Even the one sent out to Satan. And some of the things that I have seen in Christianity would even shame the Corinthians. To the credit of the Churches involved, those guilty of these things were put out of the congregation eventually.

In fact, I couldn’t be a member of any Protestant denomination as I once was, because among the doctrines that must be agreed to in order to be a member of a Protestant denomination is Justification by faith alone. I no longer agree with that doctrine. My current position on that matter is more in agreement with the Catholic position because it has become clear to me through reading James, yes the book that Luther didn’t like, that faith and works can’t be separated the way it is by Protestants. But I still believe in the idea of eternal security because security is in Christ rather than ourselves, which the Catholics do not believe. Rather they believe that one who commits a mortal sin and dies in that state will not be saved. Thus they are relying on themselves for salvation. They make claims for the grace of God and for redemption through Christ, but in the end they are relying on themselves and their own abilities in order to be saved. I don’t believe that is in line with Apostolic doctrine. Another reason I can’t be a Catholic.

I do not presume to say that any Christian is not Saved or is not in Christ. Not even if he is a Catholic, a Jehovah’s Witness, or a Mormon. That judgment belongs to God alone. I just bring out what is painfully evident to me. That Christianity does not the represent the Bible. My interpretation? That is the only argument that I have heard concerning what I am claiming. “That’s your opinionâ€. But I have not yet received any Biblical evidence in opposition to my opinion. It is my further opinion that Christians, at least the ones who are in Christ, know, even if it is subconsciously, that I am right in my opinion about the nature of Christianity.

I detest long posts such as this one. I only wrote it for your benefit.

I hope this clarifies why I call myself a

Former Christian
 
Former Christian said:
Bonairos

You said “Trying to understand what you are saying. What would you say was the lie (in your beliefs, in your lifestyle) that you couldn't live anymore? Just for clarity, that's all.â€

I have chosen to respond to your post because you seem to be more open minded and maybe a little more concerned than most.

I would like to know what Warhorse means by “real Christianâ€. The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that they are real Christians, that they are the only real Christians. The Catholics used to believe that they were the only real Christians before Vatican II. Now they include Protestants by virtue of their baptism. I have met a lot of Fundamentalist and Evangelical Protestant Christians who believe that only those who believe as they do are the only real Christians.

There is more than one on this forum who has chosen to judge my eternal destiny without knowing anything about me other than I now refer to myself as a former Christian. They don’t know why. Nor, apparently, do they care to know why. How Christian of them. Christians sin all the time while having the Spirit in them. Some Christians admit it, and 1 John 1:9 provides for those who admit they are sinners. Paul said, “If we live by the Spirit, we should also walk by the Spirit†(Gal 5:25). Paul recognized that there are those who live by the Spirit, but are not walking by the Spirit, and he encourages them to try to bring their walk in line with their life. The Christian who sins is living by the Spirit, but not walking by the Spirit. He is walking by the flesh. But these people would judge such a one a nonbeliever. I have to ask who is their God, the God of the Bible who can know what is in the hearts of men or themselves who can not?

What of the lost sheep that Jesus talks about (Mt 12)? He did not say that it was a goat he was going after. And he was in a better position than anyone to know the difference. He called the sheep a sheep even though it was lost. The point is he cared enough to search for the lost sheep and bring it back to the safety of the fold. Paul said, “But God demonstrates his own love toward us that while still being sinners, Christ died on our behalf†(Rom 5:8). If I was once in Christ, which I believe is as true for me as for anyone making that claim in Christianity, then I am still in Christ in spite of what anyone may think, including myself. But then, that may just be my Protestant interpretation. I was a Protestant Christian who believed in eternal security. Paul said, “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for usâ€. (Rom 8:33-34, KJV) Why would any Christian want to replace Christ as the rightful judge?

I have been warned by the Moderators that I am not posting properly. In that light, I went back and reread the Terms of Service. I misunderstood it completely in my first reading. I did not realize that this was a forum that catered to a specific brand of Protestant Christian thinking. The fact that there are Atheists and Catholics here confused me. When it refers to Biblical and Historical Christianity, it is referring to a limited Protestant interpretation of what that entails.

In agreement with the Protestantism that I originally was a part of, Historical Christianity refers to the Eastern Orthodox or the Roman Catholics and Biblical Christianity refers to Protestants, Protestants who believe in Sola Scriptura. There was no mixture of the two. Catholics can rightly consider themselves to be Biblical in an interpretational sense and Historical because they can trace the history of their Church back to the first century. Protestants can consider themselves Biblical, but not historical. Protestants can consider themselves to be Apostolic by virtue of their relationship with the Bible or the teachings of the Apostles. But they can’t trace their denominations existence prior to the sixteenth century. They can only claim a connection to the Church through their historical connection to the Western Church. The same as Roman Catholicism. But it is commonly agreed that Protestantism began with Martin Luther who was excommunicated from the Western Church. And the Catholic Church has never renounced that excommunication, even though they currently consider Protestants to be “separated brethrenâ€.

This forum is called a “Christian forumâ€. I assumed that it meant what it said, that it represented all Christians. And when I first read the terms of Service, I read into it my own understanding of the terminology used. I came here in hopes of renewing my faith through something that would be said that would help me to deal with what I knew to be true about Christianity. Instead I found it to be reminiscent of what led me to my present position in the first place. It seems inconceivable to me that the God of Christianity would lead me to a forum that would have the effect of corroborating my position concerning Christianity. So I conclude that I must have come here all by myself through my own ignorance.

Christians believe that Christianity, or rather their own denomination of Christianity, represents Biblical truth. The more I studied the Bible, the more I realized that Christianity and its denominations represents only its own truth. The Church as it is portrayed in the Bible certainly isn’t the same as any denomination of Christianity. One reason given is that it isn’t suppose to be the same because the Bible was written 2000+ years ago. What is seen today is the Church as it exists in the twenty first century. That is typically a Catholic defense of its present form of existence, though I have also heard Protestants use the same defense. If the Bible is truly from God, written to have meaning for all believers regardless of the era in which they live, then time shouldn’t matter. Nothing has changed. Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Humanity only gives the appearance of change through cultural differences. But its nature hasn’t changed. That defense is really an excuse for conforming the Church to the world so as to appease opposition. As the world in Adam can only achieve unity through institutions that include their laws governing the institution, so also the denominations of Christianity. The doctrines are the laws of the Christian institutions. The Spirit need not apply, in spite of the claim of many that unity in the Spirit and in their doctrines is the same thing. I believe that Christians are so entrenched in this Tradition that I can no longer believe the lie that Christianity represents Biblical truth.

I portray myself as an Atheist, but this is not entirely true. At least not yet. Actually what I believe about God, Jesus Christ and the Bible is still up in the air. An Atheist is not what I desire to be. But so far Christians have not been any help in pulling me back from the boundary line between Atheism and Theism. Except in rare instances, they have tended to push me toward the other side of the boundary, as if my very presence is a threat to them. And if their faith is in the truth of a denomination more than Biblical truth, then maybe it is.

I know there are Atheists here. I would like to hear from them as to how they are able to deal with the laws of this forum that I am accused of breaking. I have only posted according to how I believe at this time.

In spite of what many think on this forum, I have said nothing against the Bible or what it portrays. My emphasis has always been on the problem that brought me to my present position. Jesus and Paul both were against division among believers (John 17, 1 Cor 1, Eph 4). But Christianity is denominational in nature, and has been overtly denominational since the fourth century. That is, the nature of Christianity includes division. Paul says that division is out of the flesh (Gal 5). If Paul speaks truly, then what is Christianity out of? The Terms of Service of this forum is against this conclusion or any mention of it. That is the end of discussion on this forum. And that basically nullifies my whole purpose for being here. Apparently, the purpose of this forum is not to help anybody, but rather to debate what are considered acceptable points of view. I find it hard to believe that Francisdesales’ Catholic point of view and abrasive way of presenting it is considered acceptable and mine is not.

Eventide said to me, “If you'd like to share how that the living and powerful word of God is undeniably the truth then that would be fine.. although it's painfully obvious that this is not your intent here.†The thread is called, “Ye shall know the truth... absolute proof that the Bible is the word of God !†My last post there was rather extensive and you might find it of help.

More to follow.

FC
Click to expand...
To FC
Let me clarify, many who call themselves christians are not. Christian means (follower of christ). Thus there faith in christ has manifested itself into there actions, and now there actions and beliefs reflect christ. We may still have differances in our understanding of scripture, and we will naturally still fail from time to time. We are not perfect, we are in a state of being perfected.
Many so called (believers) call themselves christians, but there actions do not bear that out to be true. Please do not allow yourself to be tripped up by the actions of others. it is your relationship to christ that matters.
Study the bible for yourself and then find a church nearby that seems likeminded. There will be plenty of time after our physical deaths to establish which doctrines are correct.
Oh and if you are intersted the Baptist church is not considered to be protestant because its roots do lead all the way back to the age of christ.
 
the baptists arent protestants? odd.they believe in solo fide and solo scriptura and aslo dont have the idea of apostolic sucession. maybe your thinking of the orthodox and the copts.
 
Hi Former Christian: I have been in the christian walk for a very long time and in this forum for some time, probably one third of those in here who call themselves christian,are not. My advise,forget all religion,one on one with God,ask God to save you,confess that Jesus is your personal Saviour and don't back down from that confession. You are fighting against a very powerful foe and his method is to attack the mind either by confusion or radical allegiance to a particular religious persuasion,both are the work of satan. Your allegiance is to a personal God and His personal Son who died for your sins.
 
Former Christian -


First, thank you for taking the time and thought into writing your response. I can appreciate the effort it took to do so.

Again for clarity. Am I wrong to conclude you are talking about divorcing yourself from what you believe the term “Christian†has now become, yet not divorcing yourself from Christ Himself? (hence Former “Christianâ€)

Sort of like the word gay. At one time it meant happy, carefree, pleasant, etc. Now the term is perceived to have another meaning all together. At one time we could tell a Christian to have a ‘gay’ day. Today if we did that, it takes on a different meaning.

We may choose to disassociate ourselves with what the term has evolved to be (in our opinion), but not necessarily disassociating ourselves with the original intent.

Is that what you are saying? Or is it Jesus Christ Himself?



Be blessed, Stay blessed, and be Bold!
 
Bonairos

You said, “Again for clarity. Am I wrong to conclude you are talking about divorcing yourself from what you believe the term “Christian†has now become, yet not divorcing yourself from Christ Himself?â€

It is not that I have divorced myself from what Christianity has become. I have divorced myself from what Christianity is and has been all along. Hence, the moniker Former Christian. Christianity is something different from what the New Testament describes. It is different from what the Old Testament describes, which is only a little more reasonable. And in spite of what the Catholics say, what has been written by the so called Church Fathers (I say so called because I believe that the real Church Fathers are the Apostles and those who were with them such as Luke) is different from what the Bible describes, even though they are more in agreement with the Catholics than Protestants are willing to admit. There is historical Christianity and there is something else described in the Bible. The Bible is describing a different experience altogether.

Since the monitors of this forum claim to believe in Biblical and historical Christianity, history is the best place to start because Christianity is historical, just as the Catholics are constantly emphasizing against the Bible emphasizing Protestants.

From the first to the fourth centuries was the era of physical persecution of those the world called Christians. Was there a problem with division during this time? Yes. And there is a very clear portrayal by Paul of this problem in relation to the Corinthian Church. The seven Churches described by John in Revelations also gives a clear portrayal of this problem, but from a different perspective. Paul shows the human part in division. John shows the Satanic part in division. But the solution is the same for both. Paul says, “No one is able to say ‘Lord Jesus’ if not in the Holy Spirit†(1 Cor 12:3). He says that in contrast to “Has Christ been divided? He has not! Was Paul crucified on your behalf? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul?†(1 Cor 1:13). And “For you are still carnal. For where in you there is jealousy and strife <and division, according to the Byzantine text>, are you not fleshly and walking according to mankind?†(1 Cor 3:3) John says, “The one having an ear, let him hear what the Spirit is saying to the Churches†(Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 29, 3:6, 13, 22).

There was division during this era, but not doctrinally distinct denominations that call themselves Churches like what we see in Christianity today. The Churches during this era still had a unity that did not depend on doctrinal unity, even though different doctrinal opinions or interpretations of the Apostolic teaching existed in some Churches, clear examples of which were pointed out by both Paul and John.

Immediately after the persecutions stopped, an era began that was to reveal the true nature of Christianity. The fourth through the eighth centuries was the era that, revealed not just divisions, but revealed the accepted legitimacy of the practice of interpretation in relation to the Apostolic teaching. That era produced the first denominational factions based on authoritative interpretations of the Apostolic teaching. That also was the era that produced the first seven Ecumenical Councils. The factions produced in that era includes those who divided from those who followed all of the decisions of the seven Councils. The first major division into denominations occurred. And those who followed the Councils, were they another faction? Now that is the question isn’t it? While some Protestants like the Anglicans and the Lutherans accept the Councils with qualifications, Evangelical Protestants generally don’t accept all of the first seven Councils. But they are accepted by historical Christianity. Do the monitors who claim to believe in the historic and Biblical faith accept the third Ecumenical Council that authoritatively called the Virgin Mary Theotokos, or the Mother of God?

The followers of the first seven Councils were in the majority and had the blessing of the State or the Roman Empire. Historically, Protestantism is out of the line of these followers. But does that mean that it wasn’t a faction? That is the deceitful thing about denominationalism. Not only do all of the divisions become a denominational faction, but each faction thinks that it is not a faction. In order for these denominational factions to form, the tendency already had to exist. The denominational nature of Christianity became overt in the fourth century.

In the eleventh century, there was a second major division in Christianity when the faction that followed the seven Councils divided into an Eastern faction and a Western faction. The Eastern faction calls itself the Orthodox Church today.

The Western faction had what is considered the third major division. The faction that continued the doctrinal position of the Western faction as it was in the sixteenth century calls itself the Catholic Church today. The other faction continued to divide into more factions, and these factions are called the Protestant Churches.

The nature of Christianity has been overtly denominational or divisional since the fourth century. Now my question is this. Is historical Christianity Biblical? The Catholics certainly think so. And so it seems do the authorities of this forum. I believe that it is not because I continue to believe that the Bible is not a document that promotes division, either the in the form that existed in the first century or the more extreme form of denominationalism that exists today. The Bible is a document of experience. And what I see when I look at Christianity is an experience that is totally different from the experience described, not only in the New Testament, but also in the Old Testament. Division, especially in the extreme form of denominationalism that was unknown in the first century, but has been clearly visible since the fourth century, is at the very least out of the Adamic fleshly nature of man. At worst, in Biblical terms, it is Satanic. To Atheists, it is just something out of the imaginations of men.

Another aspect of the nature of Christianity is institutionalism. The old creation in Adam needs institutions. There is unity in institutions through a common adherence to authoritative laws and current authoritative leadership of the institution. Economic corporations are institutions, as are political nations. The world is full of institutions of one sort of another. Is Christianity any different, even among those who claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit? Does the new creation in Christ need institutions to be unified? The denominations of Christianity are institutions that have authoritative laws in the form of doctrinal standards, and they have an authoritative current leadership. A rose by any other name… It is most clearly seen in Catholicism, wherein there is the authoritative law enshrined in its Tradition, and there is the current authoritative leadership that is called the Magisterium. Is it any different in Protestantism? Not at all, in spite of the doctrinal differences among the Protestant Churches. Protestantism continues the same denominational practices as Catholicism.

This should be no surprise. The original Protestants desired to replace the human authority of the Pope with the written authority of the Bible that they believed with the Western faction as it was the sixteenth century has a Divine source. But they made a rather blatant mistake. And that is they continued to practice Biblical interpretation which nullified any possibility of practicing Sola Scriptura. Controversies began immediately between Luther, Calvin, Knox, and the Anabaptists. These controversies produced the denominations of Lutheran Churches, Reformed Churches, Presbyterian Churches, and all of the various Churches like the Baptists and the Mennonites respectively.

More to follow.

FC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top