When truth matters.

[Alithis]

I'm not going to address his issues. He's smart enough to search the scriptures and the teaching of Christ in the Catholic Church for himself.

as are we all -and we see in the scriptures a full contradiction of the teaching of rome .. so shall we obey the scripture or rome ..
it's the scriptures for me .

 

[popsthebuilder]

The principle is explained in saint Paul's letters. And in Hebrews. Chapter ten speaks of avoiding the neglect of assembling together in fellowship. Other letters urge Christians to be united in one faith with one baptism and so forth. How folk in separated and independent groups deal with such passages I am not sure but I feel confident that some sort of explanation exists that satisfies their situation as independent and/or separated from the unity mentioned in holy scripture.

Neglecting assembly under God has nothing to do with any particular section or denomination. Unity is the combining of peaceful God fearing, religion, in a comprehensive rightly guided manner under God, not division of the faithful.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Neglecting assembly under God has nothing to do with any particular section or denomination. Unity is the combining of peaceful God fearing, religion, in a comprehensive rightly guided manner under God, not division of the faithful.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

The text in Hebrews chapter ten pre-dates denominations, it comes from a time when there was only one church and all others were apostates or heretics or members of other religions.

 

[popsthebuilder]

The text in Hebrews chapter ten pre-dates denominations, it comes from a time when there was only one church and all others were apostates or heretics or members of other religions.

Regardless, all Scripture is prophetic. Refers to division which is exactly what took place by the hands of the Catholic Church. Just because there were no other technical sects doesn't mean that there weren't others that were faithful under God. Just because there was no known organized religion with extensive capital and power does not mean that they were not people faithful under God and rightly guided by it. Division is spoken against in nearly all of the Bible. The only acceptable division comes along the end times and even that is only to being on an absolutely necessary basis when it actually infringes upon the peaceful following of God under his direction. Jesus speaks of a sword but it is not a literal thing like most of the Bible is not. We are to unify through speech conversation Scripture and the teachings of Christ. Not doing this is going against the Word of God.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Regardless, all Scripture is prophetic. Refers to division which is exactly what took place by the hands of the Catholic Church. Just because there were no other technical sects doesn't mean that there weren't others that were faithful under God. Just because there was no known organized religion with extensive capital and power does not mean that they were not people faithful under God and rightly guided by it. Division is spoken against in nearly all of the Bible. The only acceptable division comes along the end times and even that is only to being on an absolutely necessary basis when it actually infringes upon the peaceful following of God under his direction. Jesus speaks of a sword but it is not a literal thing like most of the Bible is not. We are to unify through speech conversation Scripture and the teachings of Christ. Not doing this is going against the Word of God.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

If, as you claim, all scripture is prophetic then perhaps the passage points both to the unity of the church in saint Paul's time and the unity of the Church in the last days when denominations will fall away because the faith of many will grow cold.

 

[seekingsolace]

If, as you claim, all scripture is prophetic then perhaps the passage points both to the unity of the church in saint Paul's time and the unity of the Church in the last days when denominations will fall away because the faith of many will grow cold.

The faith of many is growing cold regardless of denominations unfortunately. Sinister times. I see no beacon of hope unstained from corruption, other than our Lord.

"And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold."

 

[popsthebuilder]

Patience, perseverance, and Faith. Now is not the time to waiver with the blowing of the wind but time to stand firm I'm belief and direction towards God like the oak.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Patience, perseverance, and Faith. Now is not the time to waiver with the blowing of the wind but time to stand firm I'm belief and direction towards God like the oak.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

in, not "I'm"

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[popsthebuilder]

You are right though. The only beacon we have to look towards at this time is the teaching of Christ, and the salvation make available to all through his sacrifice and our subsequent sacrifice of freshly sin and to walk in he presence in the spirit relinquishing all material want in favor of the eternal favor of God.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[Josiah]

If, as you claim, all scripture is prophetic then perhaps the passage points both to the unity of the church in saint Paul's time and the unity of the Church in the last days when denominations will fall away because the faith of many will grow cold.

The RC Denomination has a unity of NONE. The RC Denomination is DISunited with all. The RC Denomination has full doctrinal unity with NONE. There is no denomination on the planet with a greater lack of unity than the RC one, none worse in that regard.


And yes, it is gushing members: some THIRTY MILLION ex-RCC'ers just currently just in the USA alone - the second largest religious group in the USA is EX-Catholics. You may claim it is becomes of "cold faith" in the RCC, but I'll leave that explanation to you.




.

 

[Josiah]

Tthe Catholic church is identifiably a single Church as the above quote's author repeatedly says in his multi-adjective descriptions of it as "singular, unique, one, only" and so forth.

The RC Denomination has a unity of NONE; the RC Denomination is united with NONE.
Even if we limit things ONLY to the few things the RCC itself are essential and matters of greatest importance possible: even then, unitied with NONE, a unity of NONE, DISunitied with all.

There is no other denomination on the planet with less unity than the RC Denomination.

As for the Catholic Church being disunited from "all", that's not true. The Catholic Church is fully united with all the faithful within her communion

The LDS is united with all "faithful Mormons" within its own self, too: a unity ONLY with SELF exclusively, uniquely. But the RCC has no more unity than the LDS (or any other church, denomination, sect, cult or religion) - and possibly less. There is no denomination, church, sect, cult or religion on the planet Earth with less unity than the RC Denomination.



Pax



- Josiah




.

 

[popsthebuilder]

We should focus on setting aside petty differences and focus on the teachings of Christ and our direction in Faith under God. To oust any is wrong much like their voluntary seperation is wrong. Utter peaceable unity under God verified by works and guided by scripture is the only way as of now.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The RC Denomination has a unity of NONE
...
a unity ONLY with SELF exclusively, uniquely.

Cant's be none and self at the same time because self is one.

The Blessed Trinity has the unity of one God in a multiplicity of persons (precisely three persons) so the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church also has the unity of one church in a multiplicity of many persons.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Why do y'all call God three persons? I get the concept of the trinity but the father isn't a person and neither is the holy spirit so what gives? Why not call it the three beings or the three forces? Why three persons? Do you see what I'm gettin at? I mean, God is not a man or person. Even if you claim God and the son of God are one and the same neither of those are a man. Please help me to understand this concept. It is lost to me. Thank you sincerely.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[Alithis]

I've never said any such thing. The Church doesn't teach any such thing.

Toward unity

820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."[SUP]277[/SUP] Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples:

"That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."[SUP]278[/SUP] The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.[SUP]279[/SUP]​

821 Certain things are required in order to respond adequately to this call:

- a permanent renewal of the Church in greater fidelity to her vocation; such renewal is the driving-force of the movement toward unity;[SUP]280 [/SUP]
- conversion of heart as the faithful "try to live holier lives according to the Gospel";[SUP]281[/SUP] for it is the unfaithfulness of the members to Christ's gift which causes divisions;
- prayer in common, because "change of heart and holiness of life, along with public and private prayer for the unity of Christians, should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumenical movement, and merits the name 'spiritual ecumenism;"'[SUP]282[/SUP]
-fraternal knowledge of each other;[SUP]283[/SUP]
- ecumenical formation of the faithful and especially of priests;[SUP]284[/SUP]
- dialogue among theologians and meetings among Christians of the different churches and communities;[SUP]285[/SUP]
- collaboration among Christians in various areas of service to mankind.[SUP]286[/SUP] "Human service" is the idiomatic phrase.​

822 Concern for achieving unity "involves the whole Church, faithful and clergy alike."[SUP]287[/SUP] But we must realize "that this holy objective - the reconciliation of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ - transcends human powers and gifts." That is why we place all our hope "in the prayer of Christ for the Church, in the love of the Father for us, and in the power of the Holy Spirit."[SUP]288[/SUP]

277 UR 4 # 3.
278 ⇒ Jn 17:21; cf. ⇒ Heb 7:25.
279 Cf. UR 1.
280 Cf. UR 6.
281 UR 7 # 3.
282 UR 8 # 1.
283 Cf. UR 9.
284 Cf. UR 10.
285 Cf. UR 4; 9; 11.
286 Cf. UR 12.
287 UR 5.
288 UR 24 # 2.​

All who want to are called to come and drink the water of life. "The LORD says, "Come, everyone who is thirsty--- here is water! Come, you that have no money--- buy grain and eat! Come! Buy wine and milk--- it will cost you nothing!" (Isaiah 55:1)

the only word worth reading are highlighted in blue they are truth and the call is to come to rome .. oh no.. its not .. it is to come to the LORD .

point made
enough said .

 

[MoreCoffee]

Why do y'all call God three persons? I get the concept of the trinity but the father isn't a person and neither is the holy spirit so what gives? Why not call it the three beings or the three forces? Why three persons? Do you see what I'm gettin at? I mean, God is not a man or person. Even if you claim God and the son of God are one and the same neither of those are a man. Please help me to understand this concept. It is lost to me. Thank you sincerely.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Person is just a word in English but the idea of a personality who can speak and interact and have goals do actions and whatever else a person can do is undoubtedly attributed to the Father and the Son and upon careful reading the same is true of the Holy Spirit though his works, words, and deeds are more experienced than documented in holy scripture.

 

[tango]

The principle is explained in saint Paul's letters. And in Hebrews. Chapter ten speaks of avoiding the neglect of assembling together in fellowship. Other letters urge Christians to be united in one faith with one baptism and so forth. How folk in separated and independent groups deal with such passages I am not sure but I feel confident that some sort of explanation exists that satisfies their situation as independent and/or separated from the unity mentioned in holy scripture.

We can continue to assemble together even if we don't assemble within the same denomination. We should be united but only as far as the truth can stretch - if teaching becomes aberrant then we must avoid the bad teaching. It's a shame when there is so much division in matters where there should be unity - we may have our own preferences but to start fragmenting over issues of preference seems silly. It's also a shame when there's a push for unity in matters where there should be diversity - the whole "what does Christ have in common with Belial" concept is key here.

We need to decide what disagreements are minor and what disagreements are critical. So, for example (and this is hypothetical so I don't want anybody taking it as a personal attack on their beliefs) if you prefer organ music and I prefer contemporary guitars and drums we don't need to fall out over it. But if one of us thinks the other is promoting anti-Christian practices then we must divide over the issue - it's not something that we can just shrug and agree to disagree while taking communion together.

 

[MoreCoffee]

We can continue to assemble together even if we don't assemble within the same denomination. We should be united but only as far as the truth can stretch - if teaching becomes aberrant then we must avoid the bad teaching. It's a shame when there is so much division in matters where there should be unity - we may have our own preferences but to start fragmenting over issues of preference seems silly. It's also a shame when there's a push for unity in matters where there should be diversity - the whole "what does Christ have in common with Belial" concept is key here.

We need to decide what disagreements are minor and what disagreements are critical. So, for example (and this is hypothetical so I don't want anybody taking it as a personal attack on their beliefs) if you prefer organ music and I prefer contemporary guitars and drums we don't need to fall out over it. But if one of us thinks the other is promoting anti-Christian practices then we must divide over the issue - it's not something that we can just shrug and agree to disagree while taking communion together.

Tell me, is truth singular or do you think it has versions and editions so that one group can be "in the truth" and another can be too yet they differ one from the other on all sorts of matters including what salvation is, how it is received, when it is received, how to baptise and who to baptise, what the Lord's supper is and who can receive it, free will or lack of it, spiritual gifts or the absence of them, etcetera?

 

[tango]

Tell me, is truth singular or do you think it has versions and editions so that one group can be "in the truth" and another can be too yet they differ one from the other on all sorts of matters including what salvation is, how it is received, when it is received, how to baptise and who to baptise, what the Lord's supper is and who can receive it, free will or lack of it, spiritual gifts or the absence of them, etcetera?

I think truth is absolute but don't believe any one denomination is correct on all matters.

I get the impression that a lot of things that divide denominations relate to matters that are of little importance. Personally I believe the idea that drinking alcohol is forbidden is not something that the Bible supports but consider it a secondary issue. I see no reason to abstain from drinking alcohol in moderation but see no reason why I shouldn't fellowship with someone who chooses, for whatever reason, not to drink at all.

If you and I disagree on something then, unless it's a matter of opinion, then one of us is wrong. Depending on our respective viewpoints it may be that we're both wrong. It's good to look to objective sources of truth to figure out which of us is wrong (and in a theological discussion that would refer to Scripture, but in a discussion in another field it could be anything from scientific journals to something we could both observe for ourselves), although it's also good to consider whether it matters which of us is right and which is wrong. For example, although I can't see the Bible supporting a prohibition on drinking alcohol I equally see no compulsion to drink, so if someone else chooses not to drink they are free to abstain whether their reason for abstaining is their understanding of Scripture or simply because they don't like the taste of alcoholic drinks. On the other hand if someone believed that adultery was acceptable that's not something where we really can figure that it's down to personal interpretation because Scripture is clear.

Disagreements over how we are saved would seem like something that should be resolved as a matter of urgency - I would struggle to feel a sense of unity with someone if we couldn't agree on how we are saved. From there things can sit on a sliding scale from "critical" to "interesting" to "how many angels can dance on a pin".

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think truth is absolute but don't believe any one denomination is correct on all matters.

Why don't you believe that any one 'denomination' is correct on all matters?

I get the impression that a lot of things that divide denominations relate to matters that are of little importance. Personally I believe the idea that drinking alcohol is forbidden is not something that the Bible supports but consider it a secondary issue. I see no reason to abstain from drinking alcohol in moderation but see no reason why I shouldn't fellowship with someone who chooses, for whatever reason, not to drink at all.

If you and I disagree on something then, unless it's a matter of opinion, then one of us is wrong. Depending on our respective viewpoints it may be that we're both wrong. It's good to look to objective sources of truth to figure out which of us is wrong (and in a theological discussion that would refer to Scripture, but in a discussion in another field it could be anything from scientific journals to something we could both observe for ourselves), although it's also good to consider whether it matters which of us is right and which is wrong. For example, although I can't see the Bible supporting a prohibition on drinking alcohol I equally see no compulsion to drink, so if someone else chooses not to drink they are free to abstain whether their reason for abstaining is their understanding of Scripture or simply because they don't like the taste of alcoholic drinks. On the other hand if someone believed that adultery was acceptable that's not something where we really can figure that it's down to personal interpretation because Scripture is clear.

Disagreements over how we are saved would seem like something that should be resolved as a matter of urgency - I would struggle to feel a sense of unity with someone if we couldn't agree on how we are saved. From there things can sit on a sliding scale from "critical" to "interesting" to "how many angels can dance on a pin".

Seems to me from what I've seen in debates about synergy in salvation that some monergists regard synergists as non-christians. Clearly some in this forum give every indication of regarding Catholic teaching as wicked and satanic and even blasphemous so that seems like more than a secondary issue. And debates about baptism of infants often ends with mutual anathemas. So I can't help but think that characterising the differences between various denominations, groups, and churches as "secondary" really misses the mark.