PDA

View Full Version : Church in error?



Peter
11-09-01, 10:25 PM
Has the Church, as a body, ever gone into apostasy?

Christ_†_Alone
11-10-01, 05:19 AM
I guess that depends on which church you're referring to, when you say "Church".

See, Roman Catholics see their church as THE church...

while Protestants, or those who are not part of any denom that ever broke away from Rome, see the true Church as the body of redeemed believers who follow the Lord Jesus Christ, and Him alone.

So maybe you should be more clear on which church you're talking about.

And while you're at it, maybe you should give us a Biblical definition of "apostacy".

Fledge
11-10-01, 09:16 AM
I've seen that the church, more or less "as a whole" has been accused of some evil things. The Inquisitions, Crusades, Salem Withc trials.
But even then, that was just a faction, a part of the whole body of Christ...and not the entire "body" as a whole. There were people even in those circustances that disagreed and didn't take part, and even suffered and died for that.

As far as "gone into apostasy". I have not seen nor heard of any instances such as that.

Peter
11-10-01, 11:26 AM
There is only one church. Jesus did not found churches, he founded the Church. Has that Church ever fallen into error as a body? I'm not talking about Rome. See, this is the narrowness that Protestants have (that I once held myself as a former Protestant), thinking that Rome is the Church. THat's buying into their own claim. Read your history books people, Rome broke away from the Church roughly around 1054 (when Papal reps placed a bull of excommunication on the alter of the Church of Holy Wisdom in Constantinople during divine liturgy). They were upset that the rest of the Church did not accept her as having ultimate authority over all the Church.

See, the Church is not divided. It is not in error. Groups have broken away from her, using her documents to claim authority and authenticity. But the Church that Jesus founded, the Apostles governed and passed into the hands of faithful men has never passed away or diverged from the original founding. She is one in doctrine.She is one in faith. She is one in practice. She is One. She is Holy. She is Catholic (universal). She is Apostolic. She is as the creed says she is and was defined in 324. She's the same Church that weeded out authentic documents from all that had been written and assembled them into the NT. She is the Church that articulated, wrote down, the explanantion of the Trinity when faced by heretical teachings. In similar fashion, she fashioned the articulation of the two natures of Christ when faced by similar heresies.

This is an important question. Why, because if the Church that Jesus had founded, and was fisrt governed by the Apostles has ever passed away, then the gates of hell have prevailed against her and Jesus is proved to be a liar. This question is just as important as ever was faced by the seven great councils. To say the Church shifted from her original foundations even one milimeter, is a heresy as grand as saying that Jesus is a created being and is not God.

Now, has the Church that Jesus founded ever gone into error as a body (universally), in any way?

Christ_†_Alone
11-10-01, 04:45 PM
Well Peter,

I do agree with you that there is only 1 church.

I am redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, my salvation is secure, and I live and breathe by His grace.

With all of that said, I do not belong to the church that:

* bows to a man and believes him to be infallible
* prays to dead people
* determines who is, and who is not a saint, based on church doctrines
* teaches that the atonement on the cross was not enough and that additional cleansing in purgatory is required
* teaches repetitious prayers are correct, when Jesus said they were exactly what the heathen do
* teaches that men's traditions are on equal ground with the very written Word of God

The church I belong to, is made up of people who have been shown their sin by the Holy Spirit of God, and fell on their faces in humility before Him.

People who love God above all else, and deny the teachings of men when they don't line up with the Word of God. (even at risk of losing their lives for doing so)

People who struggle with their own sinfulness, and continually seek the Lord's guidance and strength to overcome, while in this putrid world.

Has THAT church ever fell into times of error?

YES... it has. BECAUSE it is made up of fallible men and women, who often times place their own opinions over the Word, this church does indeed fall into error.

And because that church IS the true church, it is always reproved of it's sins, and led right back onto the correct path, that pleases God.

Just a few thoughts...

Peter
11-11-01, 09:36 AM
I see that you still dont understand the question. Once again you've run back to Rome. I'm not refering to Rome. So, respectfully, I retract the question.

Christ_†_Alone
11-11-01, 05:07 PM
Peter,

I understand the question just fine.

And no, I don't run back to Rome, but it's denying reality to NOT point out the differences in the one church, compared to the other.

Jesus did in fact establish one church, and yes,
it has in fact fallen into times of error.

Andrew
11-11-01, 09:37 PM
AMEN! CA


Wow Peter,
you seem to stand in awe of this "she". This "she" church seems to be above all. "She" is this "she" is that ....

somehow, that already sets some alarm bells ringing in my spirit. :rolleyes:

Peter
11-12-01, 10:57 AM
The Church is God's bride. Isn't a bride a she?

Peter
11-12-01, 11:07 AM
If then the Church as a whole has gone into error, have not the gates of hell prevailed? And again, I'm not talking about local bodies or individuals, I'm talking the Church universal. And please use specifics. This is very important to me. And I'm not trying to stir up anything. A friend of mine almost committed spiritual suicide over this.

robert higgins
11-12-01, 07:26 PM
The church established by Jesus was not a universal thing but a local body of baptized believers that carries out the commission. No, this church cannot fall by the gates of hell prevailing against it. That there are churches that have fallen into error is not denied, the church at corrinth for example, but it still remained a church of christ. Christ's warning in revelation to church of having their candlestick removed, that is they no longer represent christ, but there will always be a body of His that will be true to Him and His till the end.

¤Laika¤
11-13-01, 04:02 PM
* teaches repetitious prayers are correct, when Jesus said they were exactly what the heathen do


I need to read a bit more in this thread to catch up fully with the discussion here, but I wanted to make a point about this one statement.

It is ridiculous and just poor biblical interpretation to compare the wriiten, repeated prayers of any church to the Jesus' condemnation of the heathen, babbling.

First of all, ALL churches repeat their prayers, whether they do it in song (worship songs) or in spoken word form, they are repeated. You cannot tell me that your church makes up new songs on the fly every week, and that all worship is spontanious. The worship service is FAR from spontanious. They most likely "practice" the songs at some point in the week, whether there is a choir or a band. The same songs are often repeated in order for the congregation to learn them and make them the worship/prayer of their heart. If you hold to this understanding of Christ's rebuke to the heathens prayer, then you cannot justify the practice of repeating the songs during worship. Is not worship prayer also?

Christ told us how we are to pray when he said "When you pray, pray like this..." then taught the Lord's Prayer. Do you not learn the Lord's Prayer and pray it, or teach it to your children in Sunday school? If so, are you a heathen, babbling on the street corner? No, you have simply made the prayer, a prayer of your heart. You have conformed your prayerful heart to the words of this repeated prayer.

So, if someone would care to explain why it is wrong to repeat a prayer outside of what i have just stated, please do. :)


†Laika

¤Laika¤
11-13-01, 04:06 PM
Also...

just to add.

If in fact Christ did PROMISE that the Holy Spirit would lead the church into ALL TRUTH as Scripture says, then how can "she" ( I know how much you love that Pronoun) haved errored at anytime? Did Christ lie? Did the Holy Spirit lead the church into error?

Yes, I agree that individuals and even LARGE groups of individuals have errored and even gone apostate, but has the entire church, universal? Has the Bride of Christ fallen into error? Or will He truly come to claim her, a blamless bride like He promised?

Christ_†_Alone
11-13-01, 06:59 PM
Matthew 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

John Gill:

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions:

Saying the same things over and over again

as the Heathens do:

as the worshippers of Baal, from morning till noon, #1Ki 18:26. This our Lord observes, to dissuade from such practices, because the Gentiles, who were odious to the Jews, used them, and the Jews were guilty of the same; had they not, there would not have been any need of such advice:

for they think they shall be heard for their much speaking:
as did the Jews, who, under pretence of "long prayers", devoured widows' houses; and with whom it is an axiom, that "everyone, that multiplies prayer is heard"; and whoever prolongs his prayer, his prayer does not return empty; and he that is long in prayer, his days are prolonged: and, according to their canons, every day a man ought to pray eighteen prayers.

Moreover, their prayer books abound in tautologies, and in expressing the same things in different words, and by a multiplicity of them.
______________________

Repetitious prayer such as this, not only means nothing to God, but is strictly condemned by Jesus as a practice of the heathens.

This, is what I meant when I made the comment that I do not belong to a church that teaches it's members to pray this way. I hope I've made my point clear.

¤Laika¤
11-13-01, 07:09 PM
But you haven't made your point clear. You haven't even addressed my comments on worship music...is this not also "Prayer"? Do you not sing the same songs over and over? Probably you do, yet this does not make you like the heathen.

The point of this verse is not to condemn repetitious prayer as much as it is to condemn praying like heathens. If you study the context, you'll see that the common pagan practice of the time was to in fact say the same thing over and over in a mantra form, much like it is today. i.e. the Buddhists and Hindus.

Christ was NOT condemning repeated prayers, otherwise he would have been condemning the very practice he participated in as a practicing Jew. It was and still is Jewish practice to pray and chant or sing the Psalms in the temples and synogogues, and to reapeat certain prayers every time they met, ate or commenced anything.

If you PERSONALLY do not like or appreciate the practice of repeated prayer then by all means do not participate, but to say that it is unbiblical is incorrect.

What do you think that the Psalms were used for?


Besides, Christ specifically says "VAIN repetition" which implys something being said without meaning, or without substance. Like someone repeating something that is not from the heart, but rather out of duty or in VAIN. How can you judge whether someone is doing this. If I pray every day, all day: "Lord have mercy on me." How can you say that I do not mean it everytime I say it?

¤ Laika

robert higgins
11-15-01, 10:27 AM
Hey, I thought the question was "has the church as a body ever gone into apostasy". If the church has then to trust any of the promises of Christ, inclucing eternal life, is mute and cannot be relied upon. For He said that the gates of hell shall never prevail against it. Perhaps a better defination of what the church is should be answered before analllyzing its ability to endure to the end.

Steven
11-16-01, 02:04 AM
No the church ,or body of christ has never went into total apostacy,if you will read the first four chapters of revelation you will get an accurate history of the church,wich has recieved a few warnings,only the seventh church will go into total apostacy and be spewed out,this occurs shortly after the rapture of gods children out of the church.

robert higgins
11-17-01, 05:59 PM
<steven>

By your post I think you must be dispensationist. The church at Loadicea does not represent a period in church history but a real church that John was warning before the tribulation. To believe it represents a period of history would mean that Christ could not have come until that churches period in history concluded say about 1750ad or so. This belief destroyes the pretrib doctrin of eminency.

Steven
11-18-01, 11:48 PM
Hi robert higgins

Robert of course this was adressed to the church at laodecia.The letters also give a very accurate view of church history through its stages,from the apostollic church to the apostate church.I for the life of me cannot see how this in any way would affect dispensationalism,nor do I see any way that it would affect the pretrib rapture.

robert higgins why dont you do your best to show me what you are thinking so that i might get a handle on it.

Lousy Chef
11-19-01, 08:52 AM
But we digress from this thread.

Some say that the answer is yes. Would you provide one, and only one, "for example", say from the time the Church was founded, the apostles still living, and 150 A.D.

(Bear with me your honor, this is relevant)

Oh, and use scripture to back up the apostacy. Thanks.

Not that I want you to prove the apostacy correct by scripture....oh, you know what I mean. Show me from scripture why it was an apostacy. There. Whew!

Lousy Chef
11-24-01, 10:41 AM
No replies. Maybe you didnt understand the question. Maybe you're still looking. So, let me reshape the question:

As per this thread, has the Church ever gone into error. If yes, name a specific instance when the whole church believed an apostacy between the time of the apostles and, oh let's up the years, 200 A.D.

THe reason this is important has to do with our own scholarship. We often claim that certain things did or did not happen, but often cant back them up. I've asked this question to Bible College profesors who just mumble and never give a direct answer. I'm looking for answers.

Jep
11-24-01, 11:41 AM
Hi Lousy Chef:

I believe I can help in this area. First, it was not just one church that Jesus condemned in Revelation. He chastised five of them and only two of the seven escaped His scrutiny unscathed.

Apostasy historically began thousands of years before Christ through a man that the Bible only mentions named Nimrod bar Cush. There are many historical documents that also refer to Nimrod, but in some of the documents it is difficult to ascertain what exactly is history and what is simply folklore.

But what is evident throughout the writings is that Nimrod rebelled against his creator and began to form his own religion, which would eventually be widely known as paganism.

His wife, Semiramus, became the high priestess of a new religion called the Babylonian Religious System or more simply Babylonianism. They were destined to conceive a son named Tammuz. Tammuz was said to have been seduced by Ishtar, the goddess of fertility, who then abandoned him. This abandonment so depressed Tammuz that he committed suicide (or died of a broken heart) and he then entered the underworld.

But the earthly doings of Tammuz were not finished. He came back to earth as a deity who was to oversee crops and the dying of all things botanical and zoological. The process of this reincarnation soon led to development of pagan ritual including temple prostitution, fertility rites of male and female deities and sexual orgies. Babylonianism soon spread to other parts of the world where gods and goddesses gained popularity. The worship of a god named Dagon began in Philistia, along with the worship of Baal in Canaan, Moloch in Phoenicia, and Ra, Horus, Set and Bar in Egypt. This concept of paganisn was also widely taught throughout Greece and Rome.

But back to your question. After the deaths of the apostles, those who discipled under them took the church under their wing and continued to provide the necessary nourishment for its growth throughout the first century.

A man named Marcion was born in Sinope, Turkey and traveled to Rome about 140 AD. To put Marcion’s perspective in a nutshell, he simply did not like the Bible and proceeded to change it to suit his own vision of Christianity. He rejected the entire Old Testament, and most of the New Testament, and formed a new Bible consisting of ten of the Epistles of St. Paul and a highly altered version of the Gospel of Luke. He omitted all Old Testament references in Luke's Gospel to conform it to his own beliefs. He also did not believe that Jesus was really a man, but only appeared to be one, and began to teach this doctrine.

A few years later he was excommunicated by the Christian church due to his heretical teachings, but not being a quitter, he founded his own sect: the Marcionite sect. The Marcionite sect was ascetic and celibate, similar to today’s Catholic clergy, and grew until it was second in strength only to the original Christian church. This would probably be the first post-apostle apostasy. However, there are too many apostasies to count from the second century forward.

¤Laika¤
11-24-01, 11:46 AM
Jep,

Can you please share your source for this info??



~Laika

Jep
11-24-01, 01:37 PM
Hi Laika:

“Can you please share your source for this info??”

ME: I assume you are wanting more information on the Marcionite sect? Here’s a few pages where you can read similar but perhaps more detailed information on him:

http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/christ/early/marci.html

http://www.ilet.gazi.edu.tr/~atabek/sinop/marcion.html

http://www.thelema.net/ramsey/gnostism.html#7

http://www-relg-studies.scu.edu/projects/fal96/800am/~dwang/se8.htm

Lousy Chef
11-24-01, 03:10 PM
The snap is down, the kick is away,oooohhhhhh, wide left. Sorry, some good historical info, but all you've proven is some people like to do their own thing. I need proof that the Church that Jesus founded went into apostacy as a whole. Keep trying. You yourself said that the Church denounced him as a heretic, thus proving the Church did not accept his teaching. Mumble, mumble, mumble.

Jep
11-24-01, 04:22 PM
Hi Lousy Chef:

"Mumble, mumble, mumble.”

ME: Oh....I misunderstood you. Sorry. Then if that’s what you want this is really easy. I’ll post the rest of that chapter in a book I previously wrote. Let‘s jump up to 306 AD:

In 306 AD a man named Constantine entered the setting and Roman Catholicism was firmly entrenched within the church. Constantine became the emperor of Rome during this year and was by far the most powerful leader in this part of the world.

The conversion of Constantine radically changed Christianity, in some ways for the better, but in many others for the worse.

Christian leaders were given many expensive gifts by the Roman government. After decades of persecution Christians were now safe.

However, there was also a negative aspect of Constantine’s conversion to the church. People began to become motivated to join the church simply because of the money and favored positions available to them from the Roman government rather than to be motivated out of conviction to give their heart and soul to Christ. Pagans began to enter the church and Constantine encouraged this even to a point where he seemed to attempt to merge the two religions. From 312-320 Constantine was understanding of paganism. He kept pagan gods on coins. He retained his pagan high priest title “Pontifex Maximus.”

He passed a decree to make December 25th, the birthday of the pagan Unconquered Sun god, the official holiday we now know as Christmas with the Baby Jesus as its focus.





Successful corruption of the church actually began with the actions of this king called Constantine the Great who firmly sewed his own beliefs into the fabric of an institution which, although it had its problems, was up until that time a relatively pure church. And from there it was destined to travel sharply downhill.

The first real Pope was Gregory I (AD 590-604). He established the papacy as a world ruler, ruling over the other churches in the kingdom and began to influence the kings of Europe.

Gregory did seem to have the purity of the church at heart as demonstrated by his work for the poor in Europe and the East and his unsuccessful but valiant efforts to stamp out a process called simony.

Simony became rampant in the church after the days of Constantine. How did one get to be the Bishop of Rome or a priest, or at later dates, the pope?

Through the process of simony, he bought the position with cash paid to the king and/or the church.

In 1024 Pope John XIX bought the papacy. He received all the degrees in theology necessary to hold that office in a single day.

But it was Pope Stephen II (752-757) who asked Pepen, King of the Franks, a Germanic tribe occupying western Germany and northern France, to lead the Franks to central Italy and conquer the Lombards on behalf of the Pope. Pepen was successful and gave the lands of the Lombards to the church.

The pope suddenly became an earthly king, as well as king of the churches, and the Holy Roman empire was established.

The church continued to degrade, if one can believe such is possible, until a period was reached in history called “the Midnight of the Dark Ages” beginning with Pope Adrian II in 867.

During this period the rampant bribery, immorality, sexual exploitation and even murder existing in the “church” has led historians to refer to this era as the blackest period of the church. The “Rule of the Harlots” came in with Pope Sergius III in 904.

Sergius brought his mistress, Marozia, and her mother and sister into the palace where they are said to have “filled the papal chair with their paramours and bastard sons and turned the papal palace into a din of robbers.”

In 914 Pope John X was brought to the palace by Theodora, Sergius’ mistress’ mother, for the reason that she enjoyed his sexual favors.

However, Marozia had him strangled to death and eventually placed her illegitimate son on the papal throne. Indeed, another son would appoint the next four popes: Leo VII, Stephen VIII, Martin III and Agapetus II.

In 955 a grandson of Marozia, Pope John XII, was said “guilty of every crime; violated virgins and widows, high and low; lived with his father’s mistress; made the papal palace a brothel; and was killed while in the act of adultery by the woman’s enraged husband.”

In the mid 900’s, Pope Boniface VII achieved the throne by murdering the sitting pope and was said to “maintain himself on the blood-stained papal throne by a lavish distribution of stolen money.”

The Bishop of Orleans called the popes of that day “monsters of guilt, reeking on blood and filth; antichrist sitting in the temple of God.”

From 935 to 1045, 9 popes bought the office with cold, hard cash.

Finally in 1056, a king felt he had to intervene in the church and a pope was appointed to the throne by Emperor Henry III of Germany because “no Roman clergymen could be found who was free of the pollution of simony and fornication.” Read that quote again: not one!

Over the next 150 years or so the church remained in rebellion to the teachings of Christ, and papal armies fought many battles in the name of Christ and many blameless people were slaughtered.

Then in 1198 the most powerful pope of all, Innocent III, came to power. Innocent III claimed to be the “Vicar of God” and over “all things on earth and in heaven and hell.”

Never in history has any one man exerted more power. He brought the kings of Germany, France, England and other monarchies under his control. The church became supreme ruler, extending even into the countries of the Byzantine Empire. He forbade the people to read the Bible, proclaiming that only the church can understand the Word, ordered two military crusades, ordered the murder of all people who disagreed with him in theology, and even condemned the Magna Charta. Never was more blood shed in the history of the church than under the leadership of this man.

Except .....maybe during the Inquisition.

The “Holy Office,” better known as the Inquisition, was instituted by Innocent III and brought to fruition by other popes.

This era is best described by making an analogy to the KGB or some secret police in the developing countries of Europe under communism. You were watched wherever you would go. People had to be careful what they said, for the church office of “Detection and Punishment of Heretics” was always on the move and very watchful. It was everyone’s patriotic duty before God and country to inform on “heretics.” A heretic was defined as anyone who disagreed with the pope.

The accused had no right to face his accuser and indeed had no rights what-so-ever. And those found guilty were turned over to the civil authorities to be imprisoned for life or executed by being burned alive.

Records of deaths are, of course, hard to come by. However, historians establish that in the thirty years between 1540 and 1570 more than 900,000 people were murdered by the church. If truth be known, the church probably murdered more innocent people in the name of God than did Antichrist Adolf Hitler and all the Caesars put together!

In 1517, there were sundry teachings within the Church that drew the ire of Luther. Three of these practices were most notable: simony, indulgences and nepotism. We have already discussed simony--the action of attaining a church position with money. But another even more despicable action was termed an indulgence. An indulgence was a maneuver of priests when one would sell the forgiveness of sins to his parishioners. Yes, not unlike some churches of today, salvation was a commodity that anyone could buy if they had enough money. In fact, they could buy salvation for their relatives. Even the already dead ones! Nepotism was a practice which enabled an official of the church or an influential (translated wealthy) member to get a relative into a high position in the church.

Within two or three decades or so, the ideas of a reformed church had spread throughout northwest Europe. King Henry VIII of England came on board the movement and dismissed the pope’s authority over the church. Anglicans and Episcopalians emerged from that geographical area of the church. In parts of Germany, Switzerland, France, Scotland and the Netherlands, John Calvin and the Swiss leader Ulrich Zwingli birthed the Presbyterian movement.

It wasn’t long thereafter that Calvin ordered the execution of a fellow theologist named Michael Servetus because he disagreed with him in theology. While making his way to Italy, Servetus was seized in Geneva by Calvin's order. There, after a long trial in which Calvin's condemnation was instrumental in the finding of guilt, he was burned on Oct. 27, 1553.

In Holland Calvinists executed an Armenian.

From Luther emerged the Lutherans, yet many Anabaptists were executed by this new Protestant denomination because of the different theological beliefs of those brethren. The church had changed, but was it for the better?

So you see, my friend, the church has almost always been in apostasy. With the advent of modern false prophets with millions and millions of followers like Jim and Tammy Faye Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, Benny Hinn, the “name it and claim it” crowd, the believers that teach babies with aides are sick only due to sin--with almost every church concentrating on money rather the Holy Spirit, I believe the church is more apostate today than it was back then. Read it and weep. This is the history of our church.

Lousy Chef
11-24-01, 11:08 PM
Jep, you mention that you wrote a book. You must then be a scholar. Being so I'm suprised that you make the exact same error that every Protestant historian makes. You follow the thread of the patriarch of Rome and make the same claim that she makes, she is the head of the entire Christian church. Nothing could be farther from the truth. As a scholar, you should know that Rome was only one of five patriarchs. And while it is true that the patriarch of Rome was given honor, he was first among equals and held no power over the other four jurisdictions.

Also, you jump ahead to 300 A.D. You still havent answered my question. Please name one heresy that the ENTIRE Church held between 33 A.D. and 200 A.D. Or, if you'd like, name one that the ENTIRE Church held up to 300, or prior to the leagalization of Christianity.

Steven
11-25-01, 12:37 AM
Hi lousy chef

Lousy Chef,I would like to take issue with the term protestant,altho some churches maybe protestant from the RCC,it is not true that all are.The RCC would have us believe that christianity sprang out of the RCC,not the RCC springing out of christianity.The RCC gives a history of itself that is totally inaccurate.

I like this verse for the RCC; they went out from us that it would be manifest that they were not of us for if they had been of us they surely would have continued with us,but that they went out from us it is manifested that they are not all of us.
P.s. i agree with the view that the RCC was founded under constantine the combining of christianity and paganism.



Steven

Andrew
11-25-01, 09:36 AM
Hey by any chance are you guys also refering to this verse also?:

2Th 2:3
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away/rebellion [Greek - apostasia] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

If so, i hav esomething to share about what my Pastor taught about the word "apostasia" used here.
:)

mickey1
12-20-01, 04:19 PM
Matthew 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions,

I agree that Jesus condemned repetitive prayer. Although, if you pray the same thing and mean it in your heart, there is nothing wrong with that. I believe that the repetitive prayer that is mentioned here was more like the catholic "hail mary's". They are said simply to be said. I once heard that the problem with repetitive prayer, (especially asking for material things, resolution to situations...) is that if you ask more than once - it is showing that you don't believe that God heard you, or that he is not listening or that he doesn't want to do what you ask. If that is the case then we've forgotten...,

...all things work together for good, to those that love God, to those who are called according to his purpose.

I consider singing to be a different kind of prayer, it is not for our benefit, but for God to take pleasure in our rejoicing and praising Him.

but for the grace of God,
mickey

HIS
12-23-01, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by Peter
See, the Church is not divided. It is not in error. Groups have broken away from her, using her documents to claim authority and authenticity. But the Church that Jesus founded, the Apostles governed and passed into the hands of faithful men has never passed away or diverged from the original founding. She is one in doctrine.She is one in faith. She is one in practice. She is One. She is Holy. She is Catholic (universal). She is Apostolic. She is as the creed says she is and was defined in 324.Peter...What creed are you referring to above?

Philo
12-24-01, 09:28 AM
I am sure glad I left the RCC seven years ago.
Thank God that I came to my senses and saw the truth.

The RCC is a false church. It is the polluted church run by the "Nicolaitans whom I hate", says Jesus ( Revelation 2)

The Catholic Church is a false church because it preaches a false gospel that cannot save a person. It teaches that Christ's death and resurrection were not enough to save a person, that one must add good works, and even then one can never know if he is saved. (Gal 3:1-9)
I , like the reformers, saw that I was not saved as a catholic in 1995 and I changed my mind through Gods help and believed the true gospel, the good news that I am saved just by what Christ did on the cross. And God told me that "because you believe, all your sins are forgiven." I knew that I was saved and would always have eternal life because I believe what the Bible clearly and emphatically teaches.
Dear ones, please don't get sucked into churches like the RCC that inslave you to the teachings of men and lie to you that God has somehow passed some infallabe power for through them. Read and believe the precious Word of God and particularly the epistles, as to the doctrines of grace and the church.
The church, in an nutshell, is the body of all saints who have believed the gospel that they are saved through Jesus Christ!

Thank God I know I have eternal life not because of any thing I have done or ever will do, but only by Jesus CHrist! (Eph 1:13-14, 1 John 5:9-13)

Philo

HIS
12-24-01, 06:42 PM
Philo...

You say the RCC is a "false church."

Is there any doctrine (teaching) that this church proclaims that is true or would you say that all beliefs from this church are false?

Just wanting clarification...

HIS

Philo
12-25-01, 12:30 AM
Just for clarification,

Yes, examples: the Trinity of God, the virgin birth of Christ, Christ's public ministry and coming as Lord and Messiah and Redeemer, his death and resurrection, Christ's second coming. (just to name a few)
Yes Catholics believe lots of correct doctrines, and so do the Mormons, and so does Satan.

HIS
12-28-01, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Philo
Yes, examples: the Trinity of God, the virgin birth of Christ, Christ's public ministry and coming as Lord and Messiah and Redeemer, his death and resurrection, Christ's second coming. (just to name a few) Yes Catholics believe lots of correct doctrines, and so do the Mormons, and so does Satan.
I will give you the doctrine of the Trinity as being a RCC originated doctrine, but the rest of what you stated above comes directly from the Scripture. I was referring to "RCC only" doctrine as you alluded to (i.e., worship of Mary, rosary, purgatory, etc).

The doctrine of the Trinity originated in the 4th century.

If you sincerely believe that the RCC is a false church, then how can you accept this doctrine so readily? You made the comment that the RCC is a church that “enslaves you to the teachings of men and lie to you that God has somehow passed some infallible power for through them.”

How can this Church be so false and corrupt and yet correct and enlightened in their understanding WHO God truly is...

I once read that the RCC lays claim to all Christians who accept the Trinity and are baptized in the titles: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. So, whether you like it or not…You are still considered a “member” of their church.

Does it make sense that God would give anyone a true understanding and revelation of who he is when they are (as you would suggest) preaching a false gospel?

Jesus told Peter that he received understanding of who he was by direct revelation of the Father. Apparently, you must feel the RCC is closer to God than I do…

Very respectfully yours,

HIS

Philo
12-28-01, 09:28 PM
Dear HIS,

The doctrine of God in three persons is NOT a doctrine invented by the RCC. The fact that God is: The Father, The Son-the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit is made abundantly clear in the NT, particularly in John's Gospel and the Epistles.
I challange you to simply read John's Gospel without clearly seeing the Triune God.
I am not quite sure what to make of what you are saying here:
Are you denying that God is three divine persons in one God?
If you are, then in the minds of most believers yu are not even a Christian. I, however, am not sure what to decide, so I will cut you some slack.
The doctrine of God being the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was taught and believed from the very earliest days of the church by the writers of the NT and therefore the 1st Century church. This doctrine is not some 4th century man make doctrine concocted by the bishops at the Council of Nicea, or any other council. And if you like I would be happy to prove to you that the triune God is taught and believed by the likes of Paul, John, and Peter.
I think what is throwing you is this word "Trinity". Which is not actually used in the Bible. But what that Word stands for is Biblical.
You say: "How can this Church be so false and corrupt and yet correct and enlightened in their understanding of WHO God really is?"
That's easy: the RCC has always been a paganized institution with Satan as the source of its power.
Take the statement you make above that I just quoted and instead of the word "Church", substitute the name "Satan".
You see the devil, like the RCC, BELIEVES all kinds of truths ABOUT God. But the devil, like the RCC, does not BELIEVE GOD. They have no faith that can unite them with Christ. They have no FAITH that can save them. (With the devil, of course, repentance is an impossibility). With the Catholic it is a case of being blinded to the true meaning of Calvary.
You say: "I once read that the RCC lays claim to all Christians who accept the Trinity...........You are still considered a member of that church."
HIS, I could care less what the RCC believes about my status with them! As far as I am concerned its pagan, abomination to God. Yes, I know catholics who are loving people, but I refuse to fellowship with them.
You say: "Does it make sense that God would give anyone a true understanding.......of who He is when they are........preaching a false gospel?"
Yes, because maybe this is God's way of planting the seeds of conversion.

HIS, I just wonder if you are, like others on this board, hopelessly stuck in "5 point Calvanism", to the point that you think God can only reveal His truths to those who are His. Understanding and believing the true doctrines does not necessarity mean that a person or church who believes them has FAITH in what is revealed. And absolutely vital: Does that faith in the true doctrine bring about a true oneness/relationship that being a Christian is all about? Because if it doesn't, then all the belief in all the true doctrines means NADA!

Respectfully yours,

Philo

HIS
12-29-01, 03:48 AM
Originally posted by Philo
I am not quite sure what to make of what you are saying here:
Are you denying that God is three divine persons in one God?

Simple answer based on specific question above: YES

Comments: Your question is not even Biblical. Does the Scripture state that God is three divine persons in one God? NO, it does not.

Do you not see my delima and point? How can I deny the Scripture and agree with you by saying "no, I do agree that God is three..."?

The fact that the word trinity is not in the Bible is not my main concern. My main concern is that none of the common terms and concepts established in this 4th century doctrine are in the Scripture.

Am I wrong to deny non-biblical terminology? Do you assume that God will judge me because I do not acknowledge non-biblical terms or concepts? My humble reply to these questions would be that if I allow God to be true (that is to say that I only consider biblical concepts and terminolgoy) that I will not only be justified in my sayings, but that I will also overcome when I am judged (see Romans 3:4).

So, my statement is this: Judge yourself whether I am in the faith by my statements of who I say God is, and not by any man-made doctrine.

Note: Does being in a majority prove one is right? I think you understand this question as much as I do.


The doctrine of God being the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was taught and believed from the very earliest days of the church by the writers of the NT and therefore the 1st Century church.
Now you are speaking a Biblical concept! I do not deny that God was/is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Do you have a quote from me stating this? All I am trying to say is that I don't accept the notion that God is a "trinity being" or that He is three (3) separate or distinct persons in one. I also don't accept or confess all the other non-biblical terms applied with this teaching.

There is a huge difference in your first statement (first quote above) and this other (second) quote.

I challenge you to carefully examine all of my statements (from any posts) regarding the Godhead. You will not find any non-biblical terms. How can this be wrong?

If you have any direct questions regarding my beliefs on the Godhead or would like me to express my faith on any Scripture, I would be more than happy to respond. I am pleased that we both agree that the RCC is a false church. By the way, aren't they considered the majority? :) Maybe their numbers have come down since I last checked...

Regarding your statement or question on 5-point calvanism. I have issues with some of the points...so, I am not a calvanistic thinker.

Thanks for considering my statements above...

God bless,

HIS

Philo
12-29-01, 03:43 PM
Dear HIS,

I think I understand you.

You believe and understand the Godhead strictly as presented in the Bible. And I too believe that should be the way we should see, understand, and believe God.

It is sometimes difficult for us in the western world to get completely away from all man-made absractions, and reformulations of theologians and church leaders over the ages, even when they deal in the truth- as in the Persons of the Godhead. (Examples: Augsburg Confession, 5 Point Calvanism, Arminianism, the Apostles/Nicean Creeds, "The Sinner's Prayer", Westminster Confession, etc.) Although these all contain Biblical truths in them one must take Berean-like care to make sure they are Scriptural. This I fear is something most Christian don't do.
They will dogmatically place these man-made doctrines on par with Scripture, and make them a test of faith.
HIS, if you don't accept the "Trinity" as expressed in man-made doctrines then you are correct in doing so, just as long as you believe that the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are One in the Godhead with the Father- which is Scriptural.

You say: "I am pleased we both agree that the RCC is a false church. By the way, aren't they considered the majority? Maybe their numbers have come down since I last checked."

Well, they did by one when I decided to excommunicate myself from their presence, thank God! And I pray they keep going down.
I don't doubt what you say: thousands of Hispanics have come into this country and they are not remaining Catholic, but are receiving the Biblical gospel and are involved in Bible believing churches. Praise the Lord! And this is not only happening here in the US, but also in Central and South America.

Yours in Christ,

Philo

HIS
12-30-01, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by Philo
I think I understand you. You believe and understand the Godhead strictly as presented in the Bible. And I too believe that should be the way we should see, understand, and believe God.

If you don't accept the "Trinity" as expressed in man-made doctrines then you are correct in doing so, just as long as you believe that the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are One in the Godhead with the Father- which is Scriptural.

I appreciate your acknowledgement and respect for my concerns and understanding of me holding to the Scriptures as the final authority. I'm also glad you state that you are trying to do the same. As you suggest, so many allow others to interpret the Scriptures for them without searching for themselves whether those things (they are taught) are truly so.

Regarding the second half of your statement...Not sure what Scripture you are referring to for the above statement, but here are the fundamentals or basics of what I believe regarding the Godhead.

God is SPIRIT

God is HOLY

God is indivisibly ONE

Conclusion: God is the ONE HOLY SPIRIT.

I am not referring to 1/3 of God…I am referring to God Himself.

When the Scripture says that in the beginning God created the heaven and earth, “and the Spirit of God moved upon the waters,” it is not suggesting that only “one person of three” in the Godhead was present and moving upon the face of the earth.

God Himself (100%) was present, because GOD IS SPIRIT and without bodily limitations.

His essential “being” is Spirit and His nature is most Holy.

Speaking of Genesis, God is the creator of all things (both living and non-living matter).

He is the “source” of all life. For this reason, He is given the primary distinction or title of “FATHER.”

Mal 2:10 Have we not all one father? Hath not one God created us?

Notice how Malachi asked the first question of, “do we not have but one father?” and then follows up with why God is called father (because he created us).

Of course, now that He has provided redemption to mankind, he is also a father by means of “adoption.”

So, we have ONE God, who is the eternal HOLY SPIRIT and also called “Father” through creation and adoption.

This same Spirit, who is Father of us all, was manifested in flesh and (this flesh or anointed one) called the “Son of God.”

Speaking in his humanity, Jesus said, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach…”

God (invisible Spirit) was “in” Christ (flesh), reconciling the world unto Himself.

JESUS was both God and a man. He was fully man (in every way) and yet the very God of the universe.

Speaking in his humanity, Jesus said, “The Father who dwells in me, he does the works.” (see John 14:10)

Here are examples of Scripture validating my statements:

Scripture: “God was in Christ ...” II Cor. 5:19

Statement: Spirit (Holy) was in Son Luke 4:18

Scripture: “God was manifest in flesh...” I Tim. 3:16

Statement: Father (Holy) was made visible in Son
John 14:8-10

Scripture: “For in Him (Christ) dwelleth all the fullness of the godhead bodily.” Col. 2:9

Statement: In Jesus (anointed Son) dwells all the fullness of the eternal Holy Spirit (Father of us all) in bodily form.

Scripture: “And the Word was made flesh...” John 1:14

Statement: God became His own servant Isa. 43:10-11, Isa. 9:6


Conclusion: God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto HIMSELF.

The ONE eternal, invisible Holy Spirit, who is God and Father of us all, was manifest (made seen) in the face (body) of JESUS CHRIST.
II Cor. 4:4,6

“To wit (to know) that God (Spirit) was in Christ (humanity) reconciling the world (through the shedding of blood) UNTO HIMSELF. . .” II Cor. 5:18-19

**********

This posting is very brief because I am very short on time. I could go on and on, but I will leave it at this for now. If you feel I have made any statements that are contrary to the Scripture, please let me know and I will consider your comments and send you a reply.

God bless you!
HIS

Twiggy
01-03-02, 11:03 AM
THis is a great thread. There is no doubt scripturally that God has 3 aspects of His one nature and not 3 separate entities. Is there more?

Dustashe
01-03-02, 05:08 PM
:rolleyes: Thank you HIS for your teaching on the the true One God teaching of the Bible and not of Men..2 cor:3:17

Philo
01-03-02, 09:02 PM
Dear HIS,

You say: "Regarding the second half of your statement.... not sure what Scripture you are refering to for the above statement..."

There are so many verses just in John's Gospel, that I think I'll just refer you to this entire Gospel and let you judge for yourself.

Philo

HIS
01-04-02, 04:22 AM
Philo,

I wasn't suggesting that I have a problem with your statement of "the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are One in the Godhead with the Father- which is Scriptural."

This statement sounds just fine to me. I was just wondering if you had specific verses that you wanted to talk about and also explain in more detail as to how they relate to your statement.

I agree with you that John's account of the gospel is very heavy in explaining the godhead or (what I would suggest is) the mighty God in Christ.

Thanks,
HIS