Authentic Christian teaching...

kelly1

Wolfsbane wrote:

Goduznt Xzst wrote:

It's this discord amongst the numerous sects and religions that follow Christianity that raises the biggest questions because if Christs message was so clear, why can't people agree on it?

Two reasons:
1. Not all who call themselves Christians are so, therefore we can expect them to distort authentic Christian teaching.

2. Not all Scripture is equally clear, so even true Christians get some (secondary) things wrong.

Wolfsbane's response prompted me to start this thread.

I think Goduznt Xzst asked a very good question.

Let's say someone believes in God and is searching for the true religion. Our truth seeker realizes that only one religion can be true since they all teach different doctrines. So this person decides to investigate Christianity. They will soon discover that different Christian denominations have different teachings.

Our seeker would naturally be dissatisfied with this situation. He/she, being an intelligent, logical person will know that a true religion, if there is one, would have to be revealed by God.

So how does this person decide which flavour of Christianity is authentic? ie. which church/denomination is true to what Jesus actually taught?

Any ideas?

wolfsbane

kelly1 wrote: »

Wolfsbane's response prompted me to start this thread.

I think Goduznt Xzst asked a very good question.

Let's say someone believes in God and is searching for the true religion. Our truth seeker realizes that only one religion can be true since they all teach different doctrines. So this person decides to investigate Christianity. They will soon discover that different Christian denominations have different teachings.

Our seeker would naturally be dissatisfied with this situation. He/she, being an intelligent, logical person will know that a true religion, if there is one, would have to be revealed by God.

So how does this person decide which flavour of Christianity is authentic? ie. which church/denomination is true to what Jesus actually taught?

Any ideas?

Start with reading the Bible through, starting with one of the gospels, then Acts for an early development of the church, then the rest of the NT letters for the full revelation of Christian doctrine. The OT then for the background and to check all those references to it in the NT.

That would give a good general idea of the Christian faith, even to an unconverted person.

Pray to God for guidance as one does this is, of course. He can give insight beyond our natural abilities.

Then compare this with what the various claimants to Christianity teach.

Then see how these claimants have lived up to the Biblical teachings down the ages.

That should separate the wheat from the chaff.

kelly1

wolfsbane wrote: »

Start with reading the Bible through, starting with one of the gospels, then Acts for an early development of the church, then the rest of the NT letters for the full revelation of Christian doctrine. The OT then for the background and to check all those references to it in the NT.

That would give a good general idea of the Christian faith, even to an unconverted person.

Pray to God for guidance as one does this is, of course. He can give insight beyond our natural abilities.

Then compare this with what the various claimants to Christianity teach.

Then see how these claimants have lived up to the Biblical teachings down the ages.

That should separate the wheat from the chaff.

The problem with this approach is that there are too many questions that the bible can't answer definitively or explicity e.g.

- Is baptism symbolic or does it actually remit sin and confer grace?
- Does a person have to be fully immersed for baptism to be valid?
- Must we confess our sins to a priest or can we ask God directly?
- If Jesus gave the apostles the power to forgive sin, did this authority die with them or was it passed on to their successors?
- When Jesus said at the last supper, "This is my body", did He mean it literally?
- Was Peter the leader of the apostles?
- Was Peter the rock or Jesus? (Mt 16:18)
- What does "bind and loose" mean and does this authority exist today?
cf. Mt 16:19 and Mt 18:18
- Does Purgatory exist?
- What is the ultimate authority on earth as regards true Christian teaching? The bible or the Church?
- What is Sacred Tradition and is it valid? cf. 2 Thes 2:15
- Can salvation be lost?
- Can sin be categorized as venial and mortal?

So how does our friend find the answers to these quesions?

Pompey Magnus

wolfsbane wrote: »

Start with reading the Bible through, starting with one of the gospels, then Acts for an early development of the church, then the rest of the NT letters for the full revelation of Christian doctrine. .

Surely by confining your reading to the New Testament you are limiting your options to solely the Orthodox versions of Christianity. It might be logical for you, as an orthodox Christian, to recommend reading the orthodox scriptures, but there are more versions of Christianity than the orthodoxy and for an outsider trying to find the true Christianity the New Testament and the popular interpretation of Christianity shouldn't be regarded as any more accurate or truer than other canons, for example the original Christian canon defined by Marcion which was the Gospel of Luke and 10 of Paul's epistles should be given equal status to the considerably later New Testament as should Gnostic writings.

Surely a person who is trying to find the true Christian message should read all Christian scriptures and not bias their reading to one particular collection of certain writings?

kelly1

Charco, do we really need to complicate the situation by casting doubt on the validity of Scripture?

Most Christians believe Scripture to be revealed by God and therefore free from error.

Others take the view that Scripture has been corrupted. Let's stay away from that particular tangent please.

Pompey Magnus

kelly1 wrote: »

Charco, do we really need to complicate the situation by casting doubt on the validity of Scripture?

Most Christians believe Scripture to be revealed by God and therefore free from error.

Well the question you asked was how an outsider would decide which branch of Christianity is truest to the teachings of Jesus, I don't see how taking alternative non-orthodox Christian teachings into consideration can be unnecessarily complicating matters because the outsider would not have the popular bias that you mention.

If you want to go down the route of might is right, that as most Christians believe the New Testament is revealed by God therefore the popular vote proves orthodox Christianity is the true Christian message, then we should continue down this line by pointing out that most Christians also believe that the Pope is the direct successor of St Peter therefore the Roman Catholic Church must be the true Christian Church and that would be the end of discussion.

If you wish you can refine the question to refer to a vague Christian who has been brought up using only the New Testament and has the assumption that it is the only true scripture, because from the original question of a proper outsider to Christianity trying to find the true historial Christian message I think considering non-orthodox teachings would be important.

kelly1

Charco wrote: »

.....If you wish you can refine the question to refer to a vague Christian who has been brought up using only the New Testament and has the assumption that it is the only true scripture, because from the original question of a proper outsider to Christianity trying to find the true historial Christian message I think considering non-orthodox teachings would be important.

Which non-orthodox writings do you have in mind and why should they be considered reliable?

The canonical books of the NT are taken to be reliable because Matthew and John were apostles of Jesus and Mark and Luke were associates of Ss. Peter and Paul respectively.

Pompey Magnus

kelly1 wrote: »

Which non-orthodox writings do you have in mind and why should they be considered reliable?

I'm not claiming that any non-orthodox writings are reliable, but I don't see why they should be disregarded because some people believe (for no obvious reason) that 27 particular Christian writings were inspired directly by God, no less and no more, all because an Egyptian priest in the 4th Century said that they were.

The canonical books of the NT are taken to be reliable because Matthew and John were apostles of Jesus and Mark and Luke were associates of Ss. Peter and Paul respectively.

Actually the four Gospels are anonymous, we don't have a clue who wrote them. Not one of them claim to be present at the events they describe and none explain who their sources were.

kelly1

Charco wrote: »

I'm not claiming that any non-orthodox writings are reliable, but I don't see why they should be disregarded because some people believe (for no obvious reason) that 27 particular Christian writings were inspired directly by God, no less and no more, all because an Egyptian priest in the 4th Century said that they were.

Only 1 Egyptian priest? Who was that? According to the link below, it was pope Damasus who first gave a definitive list.

http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap030700.htm

As regards non-orthodox writings, they may or may not be reliable but they were judged to not be divinely inspired by the early Church. They would have to be examined to determine whether they contradict the canonical books.

Charco wrote: »

Actually the four Gospels are anonymous, we don't have a clue who wrote them. Not one of them claim to be present at the events they describe and none explain who their sources were.

As for the authorship of the Gospels, I don't know how this was determined but I don't think it's fair to say we don't have a clue. Presumably this was based on the writings/testimony of the Church Fathers?

rockbeer

kelly1 wrote: »

As regards non-orthodox writings, they may or may not be reliable but they were judged to not be divinely inspired by the early Church. They would have to be examined to determine whether they contradict the canonical books.

Then you have already made your decision that the early church represented the one true path.

What if the church had already diverged from the true christian message by the time the decision was made to exclude certain material from the canon?

BrianCalgary

kelly1 wrote: »

The problem with this approach is that there are too many questions that the bible can't answer definitively or explicity e.g.

- Is baptism symbolic or does it actually remit sin and confer grace? Baptism is an act of obedience. The confession has alrady happened which means sin has been forgiven and grace given.
- Does a person have to be fully immersed for baptism to be valid?Secondary disuccion which really means nothing
- Must we confess our sins to a priest or can we ask God directly?Either works. There is merit to having a confidant such as a priest
- If Jesus gave the apostles the power to forgive sin, did this authority die with them or was it passed on to their successors?Only God can forgive the sins commited against Him. So no as their is no clear succesion
- When Jesus said at the last supper, "This is my body", did He mean it literally?Fun debate. Worth debating
- Was Peter the leader of the apostles?
- Was Peter the rock or Jesus? (Mt 16:18)
- What does "bind and loose" mean and does this authority exist today?
cf. Mt 16:19 and Mt 18:18Never thought of that. Lets discuss:)
- Does Purgatory exist?Absolutely not.
- What is the ultimate authority on earth as regards true Christian teaching? The bible or the Church?Jesus and the word of God.
- What is Sacred Tradition and is it valid? cf. 2 Thes 2:15Not sure of your definition of sacred tradition. Simply put thoght Jesus commanded us to 'make disciples of all nations teaching them that which Jesus commande. Matthew 18:18-20
18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
- Can salvation be lost?Can't resolve this one
- Can sin be categorized as venial and mortal?Nope, Jesus says that if you break one you have broken them all.

So how does our friend find the answers to these quesions?

The answers to all the questions are contained within the Bible, which is God's communivation to us.

And Charco, move the discussion of Bible authenticity to another thread.

Pompey Magnus

kelly1 wrote: »

Only 1 Egyptian priest? Who was that? According to the link below, it was pope Damasus who first gave a definitive list.

http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap030700.htm

It was Athanasius of Alexandria who first proposed the current NT canon, about 300 years after the scriptures themselves were written.

As regards non-orthodox writings, they may or may not be reliable but they were judged to not be divinely inspired by the early Church. They would have to be examined to determine whether they contradict the canonical books.

The non-orthodox scriptures were judged not to be divinely inspired by the orthodox Church, that they didn't recieve this seal of approval is not really surprising and doen't tell us an awful lot.

As for the authorship of the Gospels, I don't know how this was determined but I don't think it's fair to say we don't have a clue. Presumably this was based on the writings/testimony of the Church Fathers?

The identity of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark was first proposed by Papias and we aren't even sure if the Gospels he referred to were the Gospels of Matthew and Mark we have today as his Gospel of Mark was not in chronologocal order, our Gospel of Mark is, and his Gospel of Matthew was a Hebrew sayings Gospel whilst our Gospel of Matthew was a Greek narrative.

To make matters worse Papias only claims to have recieved this knowledge from anonymous presbyters (these sources also told him that Judas expanded to the size of a cart before exploding and he believed them) and also Papias was claimed to have been a man of "small mental capacity" by Eusebius.

BrianCalgary

Charco wrote: »

It was Athanasius of Alexandria who first proposed the current NT canon, about 300 years after the scriptures themselves were written.



The non-orthodox scriptures were judged not to be divinely inspired by the orthodox Church, that they didn't recieve this seal of approval is not really surprising and doen't tell us an awful lot.



The identity of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark was first proposed by Papias and we aren't even sure if the Gospels he referred to were the Gospels of Matthew and Mark we have today as his Gospel of Mark was not in chronologocal order, our Gospel of Mark is, and his Gospel of Matthew was a Hebrew sayings Gospel whilst our Gospel of Matthew was a Greek narrative.

To make matters worse Papias only claims to have recieved this knowledge from anonymous presbyters (these sources also told him that Judas expanded to the size of a cart before exploding and he believed them) and also Papias was claimed to have been a man of "small mental capacity" by Eusebius.

Get back on topic please Charco. Open a new thread to discuss the canon.:mad:

kelly1

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The answers to all the questions are contained within the Bible, which is God's communivation to us.

The answer are contained in the bible but not in any explicit or definitive way.

All of your replies to my list of questions can easily be debated. So who's to say who's right and who's wrong. Does anyone have the authority do determine the correct answers to these questions?

BrianCalgary

kelly1 wrote: »

The answer are contained in the bible but in any explicit or definitive way.

All of your replies to my list of questions can easily be debated. So who's to say who's right and who's wrong. Does anyone have the authority do determine the correct answers to these questions?

You are right. They can be debated and are worth debating. In our debate we exaimine the word closer and therefore get to know God better.

I do however think that there are primary issues that no Christian church would disagree with.

Those are: redemption only available through Christ, Jesus is God incarnate. And not really limited to the preceding.

wolfsbane

kelly1 said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianCalgary
The answers to all the questions are contained within the Bible, which is God's communivation to us.
The answer are contained in the bible but not in any explicit or definitive way.

All of your replies to my list of questions can easily be debated. So who's to say who's right and who's wrong. Does anyone have the authority do determine the correct answers to these questions?

The One who has the authority is the Holy Spirit. No man nor men have the infallible teaching authority given by the Spirit to the apostles, hence no new Scripture. That means they don't even have the power to infallibly pronounce on what are the individual doctrines.

Is it moral to drink tea and coffee? The Mormon prophet claims infallible authority to say no. Just because men take it upon themselves to make specific pronouncements, does not mean they are speaking for God.

Rome makes many such claims, but its notable members down the years have differed from its present position on many of these points. Hardly evidence to support the claim to infallibility.

We don't need such 'infallible' guidance. We have the Spirit to lead us into fuller truth, to mature us as we walk in Christ's steps. We will not know the answers to all doctrine until we see Him face to face - but we will know enough to keep us on the way.

kelly1

wolfsbane wrote: »

kelly1 said:

The One who has the authority is the Holy Spirit. No man nor men have the infallible teaching authority given by the Spirit to the apostles, hence no new Scripture. That means they don't even have the power to infallibly pronounce on what are the individual doctrines.

Infallibility does indeed come from the Holy Spirit. You see Christ didn't abandon the Church. He promised that the Church would be guided by Holy Spirit "into all truth". Do you suppose the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church as soon as the apostles died?

Likewise, Jesus gave the apostles the authority to forgive sin (Jn 20:23). Do you think this also disappeared with the deaths? Why bother to give this authority if it was only temporary? Does Jesus do things by half?

BTW, I never mentioned new Scripture. Divine Revelation ended with the apostles. All dogmas of the Church that have been defined are based on Scripture *and* Tradition. References in Scritpure are often implicit of subtle. Take for example Purgatory. There is no explicit teaching about Purgatory in Scritpure but there are several verses which support its existence e.g. 1 Pt 3:19, 1 Pt 4:6, 1 Cor 3:12-15, Mt 5:26, Mt 12:32, Mt 18:32.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Rome makes many such claims, but its notable members down the years have differed from its present position on many of these points. Hardly evidence to support the claim to infallibility.

Could you give a few examples please?

wolfsbane wrote: »

We don't need such 'infallible' guidance. We have the Spirit to lead us into fuller truth, to mature us as we walk in Christ's steps.

We certainly do need infallible guidance because we humans aren't capable of preserving the truth with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The bible alone isn't sufficent because it's open to interpretation.

BTW, I'd be interested to hear what you understand by the power to "bind and loose" referred to in Matthew's Gospel. What do you think this means?

God bless,
Noel.

wolfsbane

kelly1 said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The One who has the authority is the Holy Spirit. No man nor men have the infallible teaching authority given by the Spirit to the apostles, hence no new Scripture. That means they don't even have the power to infallibly pronounce on what are the individual doctrines.
Infallibility does indeed come from the Holy Spirit. You see Christ didn't abandon the Church.

Correct.

He promised that the Church would be guided by Holy Spirit "into all truth".

Correct.

Do you suppose the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church as soon as the apostles died?

Definitely not. But you suppose that means He infallibly guides the Pope about certain doctrines. I say He left the infallible word of God to the Church, and He leads the individual Christian bit by bit into its truth. No one can claim to infallibly pronounce on doctrine - only that God has already done so by His apostles and they have left that to us as the NT.

You might object that Christians differ on several points as they interpret the NT - but the same can apply to the Pope's 'infallible' pronoucements. What if some say this is what the pope means by mary's immaculate conception, and another says that is mistaken, he really meant that? What you have is not an infallible pope, but an organisation enforcing whatever the current pope says is RCC teaching.

Likewise, Jesus gave the apostles the authority to forgive sin (Jn 20:23). Do you think this also disappeared with the deaths? Why bother to give this authority if it was only temporary? Does Jesus do things by half?

No, that authority remains with the Church. We exercise it in preaching the gospel and the exercise of church discipline, not in the God-like sense claimed by Rome.

BTW, I never mentioned new Scripture. Divine Revelation ended with the apostles.

But why should that be, if the infallible teaching authority of the apostles is passed on to Peter's (supposed) successor?

All dogmas of the Church that have been defined are based on Scripture *and* Tradition. References in Scritpure are often implicit of subtle. Take for example Purgatory. There is no explicit teaching about Purgatory in Scritpure but there are several verses which support its existence e.g. 1 Pt 3:19, 1 Pt 4:6, 1 Cor 3:12-15, Mt 5:26, Mt 12:32, Mt 18:32.

To build such big doctrines on such flimsy foundations is dishonest. If they were real, they would be explicit. Otherwise we can invent a host of doctrines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Rome makes many such claims, but its notable members down the years have differed from its present position on many of these points. Hardly evidence to support the claim to infallibility.
Could you give a few examples please?

Sure. We discussed before the Immaculate Conception of Mary. In the Catholic article you posted it listed some of the Fathers and others who held her to have been a sinner like the rest of us.

Wiki reminds us:It was rejected by St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Alexander of Hales, and St. Bonaventure (who, teaching at Paris, called it "this foreign doctrine," indicating its association with England), and by St. Thomas Aquinas who expressed questions about the subject, but said that he would accept the determination of the Church.

Augustine held to the doctrine of predestination in the Calvinist sense, contrary to present RCC dogma.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
We don't need such 'infallible' guidance. We have the Spirit to lead us into fuller truth, to mature us as we walk in Christ's steps.
We certainly do need infallible guidance because we humans aren't capable of preserving the truth with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The bible alone isn't sufficent because it's open to interpretation.

I covered that above.

BTW, I'd be interested to hear what you understand by the power to "bind and loose" referred to in Matthew's Gospel. What do you think this means?

I'm out of time for tonight, so will come back tomorrow, DV.

Goduznt Xzst

Of all the Christian denominations listed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

Which one is the true one? Can there be multiple true Christian denominations? What process is used to decide which ones are true and which ones are false?

BrianCalgary

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Of all the Christian denominations listed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

Which ones is the true one? Can there be multiple true Christian denominations? What process is used to decide which ones are true and which ones are false?

Any that each from the Bible and stick to truth on primary matters. We can discuss secondary matters but they don't determine Christianity, matters such as sprinkling vs dunking, presence of Christ during communion, wine v grape juice, little wafers v jacobs biscuits, etc, etc.

Heavy metal worship music or the grand ol' hymns, dancing or no dancing, alcohol or no; all secondary matters but definitely preferences.

What my church's denomination would say are the primaries:
about God
God is the Creator and Ruler of the universe. He has eternally existed in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three are co-equal and are one God.
Genesis 1:1, 26, 27; 3:22; Psalm 90:2; Matthew 28:19; 1 Peter 1:2; 2 Corinthians 13:14

about Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is co-equal with the Father. Jesus lived a sinless human life and offered Himself as the perfect sacrifice for the sins of all people by dying on a cross. He arose from the dead after three days to demonstrate His power over sin and death. He ascended to Heaven's glory and will return again to earth to reign as King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.
Matthew 1:22-23; Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1-5; 14:10-30; Hebrews 4:14-15; 1 Corinthians 15: 3-4 Romans 1:3-4 Acts 1:9-11; 2 Timothy 6:14-15; Titus 2:13
about the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is equal with the Father and the Son as God. He is present in the world to make people aware of their need for Jesus Christ. He also lives in every Christian from the moment of salvation. He provides the Christian with power for living, understanding of spiritual truth, and guidance in doing what is right. The Christian seeks to live under His control daily.
2 Corinthians 3:17; John 16:7-13; 14:16-17; Acts 1:8; 2 Corinthians 2:12; 3:16; Ephesians 1:13 Galatians 5:25; Ephesians 5:18

about Humans
We are made in the spiritual image of God to be like Him in character and to bring him glory. We are the supreme object of God's creation and love. Although we have tremendous potential for good, we are marred by an attitude of disobedience towards God called "sin." This attitude separates us from God until the relationship is restored through a personal commitment to Jesus Christ.
Genesis 1:27; Psalms 8:3-6; Isaiah 53:6; Romans 3:23; Isaiah 59: 1-2

about Eternity
Humans were created to exist forever. We will either exist eternally separated from God by sin, or in union with God through forgiveness and salvation. To be eternally separated from God is Hell. To be eternally in union with Him is eternal life. Heaven and Hell are places of eternal existence.
John 3:16; 1 John 2:25; 5:11-13; Romans 6:23; Revelation 20:15

about Salvation
Salvation is a gift from God to humanity. We can never make up for our sin by self-improvement or good works. Only by trusting in Jesus Christ as God's offer of Forgiveness can we be saved from sin's penalty. Eternal life begins the moment one receives Jesus Christ into his life by faith.
Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8-9; John 14:6; 1:12; Titus 3:5; Galatians 3:26; Romans 5:1

about the Bible
The Bible is God's Word to all people. It was written by human authors under the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is the supreme source of truth and guidance for Christian beliefs and living. Because it is inspired by God, it is truth without any mixture of error.
2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21; 2 Timothy 1:13; Psalms 119:105, 160; 12:6; Proverbs 30:5

about the Church
The universal Church, of which Jesus Christ is the Head, consists of all people from all nations who have put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ and through faith are forgiven by God’s grace. The local church, the visible expression of the universal Church, is a group of followers of Jesus Christ who walk and gather together to worship God, to be built up through the Word of God, to pray, to grow in relationship together, and to declare in their words and actions the good news of salvation both locally and globally.
Ephesians 3:6-12; Ephesians 1:22-23; Acts 2:41-47; Hebrews 10:25; Matthew 28: 19-20; Acts 1:8; Acts 11:19-30; Acts 15

about Spiritual Formation
God desires that each follower of Christ would grow in their knowledge of him and be formed to live like Jesus, expressing Christ’s love in word and action. This journey of being formed in Christ is not merely one of self-effort and striving, but of empowerment by the Holy Spirit. Each believer is encouraged to live under the control, power and guidance of the Holy Spirit – what the Bible calls “being filled with the Spirit.” Being filled with the Holy Spirit is both a distinct event and progressive experience in the life of the believer.
1 Thessalonians 5:23; Acts 1:8; Romans 12:1-2; Ephesians 5:18; Galatians 4:19, 5:16-25

Goduznt Xzst

BrianCalgary wrote: »

What my church's denomination would say are the primaries:

Ok thats all well and good. But you started it with the source of my problem. See you are saying these are your Churchs opinions on what are the primary beliefs.

I'm sure If I was to talk to someone from a denomination that didn't accept the trinity (i.e. Nontrinitarianism) that they'd tell me your primary belief in regards to God was false.

So how does someone looking to choose from all these varied denominations know which one is correct?

Fanny Cradock

The majority of denominations agree on the essentials (Jesus is Lord and Saviour etc.), and I would argue that the areas of disagreement are often relativity minor. However, to answer your question "how do you know which one is correct?", one would imagine that personal investigation would be the best method for someone seeking the 'correct' denomination. But in this regard, I would actually go as far as saying that none of them are absolutely correct.

Goduznt Xzst

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The majority of denominations agree on the essentials (Jesus is Lord and Saviour etc.), and I would argue that the areas of disagreement are often relativity minor. However, to answer your question "how do you know which one is correct?", one would imagine that personal investigation would be the best method for someone seeking the 'correct' denomination. But in this regard, I would actually go as far as saying that none of them are absolutely correct.

Christ being a part of the God Trinity, and Christ being a separate entity to God altogether would seem like a fairly big essential imo. Are you saying that all Nontrinitarian denominations are false? If someone was to personally investigate the various different Christian denominations how would they resolve these fairly large differences in beliefs between them as they both back up their beliefs by quoting scripture?

wolfsbane

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Of all the Christian denominations listed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

Which one is the true one? Can there be multiple true Christian denominations? What process is used to decide which ones are true and which ones are false?

Any of them that believe and practice the fundamental doctrines of the faith should be regarded as authentically Christian, even though they will differ on non-essentials.

That's the denominations. But true Christians are also found among the members of denominations that have fundamentally erred.

An example of a fundamental doctrine: the deity of Christ. A non-fundamental doctrine: baptism by immersion.

wolfsbane

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Ok thats all well and good. But you started it with the source of my problem. See you are saying these are your Churchs opinions on what are the primary beliefs.

I'm sure If I was to talk to someone from a denomination that didn't accept the trinity (i.e. Nontrinitarianism) that they'd tell me your primary belief in regards to God was false.

So how does someone looking to choose from all these varied denominations know which one is correct?

Regarding fundamental doctrines, the Bible is sufficiently clear and the Spirit confirms it to those who are of God.

The spiritually deluded are blinded to even obvious truth, and it is a mark of those who are not true Christians that they reject saving truth.

wolfsbane

kelly1 said:

BTW, I'd be interested to hear what you understand by the power to "bind and loose" referred to in Matthew's Gospel. What do you think this means?

In Matthew 16 and in 18 and in John 20 we get this mention of the power conferred on the Church:
Matthew 16:19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Matthew 18:15 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ 17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
19 “Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

John 20:21 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

This refers to the forgiveness of sins in conversion of the unbeliever and the forgivness of sins in discipline of the believer.

It does not give the Church the right to make its own justice, condemning the innocent and letting the guilty go free. By the Spirit, they are enabled to justly judge the erring brother and to assure the sinner of his salvation if he believes the gospel.

We practice that in our Evangelical churches - and a shame on any Evangelical church that fails to do so.

kelly1

wolfsbane wrote: »

Any of them that believe and practice the fundamental doctrines of the faith should be regarded as authentically Christian, even though they will differ on non-essentials.

That's the denominations. But true Christians are also found among the members of denominations that have fundamentally erred.

An example of a fundamental doctrine: the deity of Christ. A non-fundamental doctrine: baptism by immersion.

In the Catholic faith, the Eucharist, priestly authority to forgive sin "in persona Christi", and justification through baptism are fundamental doctrines. How can you be so sure these are wrong?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Regarding fundamental doctrines, the Bible is sufficiently clear and the Spirit confirms it to those who are of God.

The spiritually deluded are blinded to even obvious truth, and it is a mark of those who are not true Christians that they reject saving truth.

Sorry for saying this, but that comes across as quite proud.

kelly1

wolfsbane wrote: »

This refers to the forgiveness of sins in conversion of the unbeliever and the forgivness of sins in discipline of the believer.

I don't get you. It says "whose sins you forgive". i.e Jesus gave them the authority to forgive sin in His name.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It does not give the Church the right to make its own justice, condemning the innocent and letting the guilty go free. By the Spirit, they are enabled to justly judge the erring brother and to assure the sinner of his salvation if he believes the gospel.

You seem to have side-stepped my question about binding and loosing. The power to bind and loose was first given to Peter and then to the apostles collectively. So what do you think this means?

Fanny Cradock

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Christ being a part of the God Trinity, and Christ being a separate entity to God altogether would seem like a fairly big essential imo. Are you saying that all Nontrinitarian denominations are false? If someone was to personally investigate the various different Christian denominations how would they resolve these fairly large differences in beliefs between them as they both back up their beliefs by quoting scripture?

Are you asking are their denominations out there that preach things that I would find at odds with the core tennets of Christianity? Yes, I certainly do. However, I'm afraid that I don't know enough of the Nontrinitarian beliefs to make a blanket condemnation.

kelly1

Wolfsbane, any chance of an answer to my questions in posts 27 and 28?

John 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

In view of the above verse, do you accept that Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins?

And by this I mean that sins would be forgiven by proxy i.e. that God would forgive peoples sins when the Apostles gave absolution.

wolfsbane

kelly1 said:

Wolfsbane, any chance of an answer to my questions in posts 27 and 28?

Apologies for the delay - I've been engaged in a lot of threads and fitting in in around work.

Quote:
John 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
In view of the above verse, do you accept that Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins?

And by this I mean that sins would be forgiven by proxy i.e. that God would forgive peoples sins when the Apostles gave absolution.

No, I do not see it as a priestly confession/absolution rite. Rather that by the apostles teaching/preaching sinners would be brought to repentance and faith and God would forgive them. To disobey the apostles' teaching/preaching would mean their sins were not forgiven.

In the Catholic faith, the Eucharist, priestly authority to forgive sin "in persona Christi", and justification through baptism are fundamental doctrines. How can you be so sure these are wrong?

Because they are not in the Bible. Baptism, for example was not a part of the experience of the thief on the croos - yet he was saved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Regarding fundamental doctrines, the Bible is sufficiently clear and the Spirit confirms it to those who are of God.

The spiritually deluded are blinded to even obvious truth, and it is a mark of those who are not true Christians that they reject saving truth.
Sorry for saying this, but that comes across as quite proud.

What's proud about it? It's a bald statement of truth. Do you think there are no spiritually deluded folk? That some who reject saving truth do so not from ignorance but in spite of God's revelation to them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
This refers to the forgiveness of sins in conversion of the unbeliever and the forgivness of sins in discipline of the believer.
I don't get you. It says "whose sins you forgive". i.e Jesus gave them the authority to forgive sin in His name.

As above: they do so by their doctrine left to us in the New Testament Scripture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It does not give the Church the right to make its own justice, condemning the innocent and letting the guilty go free. By the Spirit, they are enabled to justly judge the erring brother and to assure the sinner of his salvation if he believes the gospel.
You seem to have side-stepped my question about binding and loosing. The power to bind and loose was first given to Peter and then to the apostles collectively. So what do you think this means?

It means their teaching authority would lay down the binding rules for the church; and those rules would be used by the church after their departure to enfoce discipline among believers and instruct sinners how to be saved. Those rules are the doctrines of the New Testament Scriptures.

Rookie72

why dont you just ask God, which Church is right.

"if any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God who giveth to all men librally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him"

sorella

Or to all who believed in Jesus

Because we all have to forgve and to release those who have harmed us from the bondage of their sin.

Else it remains,like the albatross round the neck of the Ancient Mariner.

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't get you. It says "whose sins you forgive". i.e Jesus gave them the authority to forgive sin in His name.



You seem to have side-stepped my question about binding and loosing. The power to bind and loose was first given to Peter and then to the apostles collectively. So what do you think this means?

sorella

Is that not the truth...

"The majority of denominations agree on the essentials (Jesus is Lord and Saviour etc.), and I would argue that the areas of disagreement are often relativity minor."

sorella

You make it so unnecessarily complicated, Noel.

Makes the head spin and reel away from the utter simplicity of Jesus.

And for most; all we can do is bow in humility and love and trust.

Blessings this day

kelly1 wrote: »

The problem with this approach is that there are too many questions that the bible can't answer definitively or explicity e.g.

- Is baptism symbolic or does it actually remit sin and confer grace?
- Does a person have to be fully immersed for baptism to be valid?
- Must we confess our sins to a priest or can we ask God directly?
- If Jesus gave the apostles the power to forgive sin, did this authority die with them or was it passed on to their successors?
- When Jesus said at the last supper, "This is my body", did He mean it literally?
- Was Peter the leader of the apostles?
- Was Peter the rock or Jesus? (Mt 16:18)
- What does "bind and loose" mean and does this authority exist today?
cf. Mt 16:19 and Mt 18:18
- Does Purgatory exist?
- What is the ultimate authority on earth as regards true Christian teaching? The bible or the Church?
- What is Sacred Tradition and is it valid? cf. 2 Thes 2:15
- Can salvation be lost?
- Can sin be categorized as venial and mortal?

So how does our friend find the answers to these quesions?

Phototoxin

Which one is the true one? Can there be multiple true Christian denominations? What process is used to decide which ones are true and which ones are false?

why do people think that the truth is mutually exclusive?

If I see a red flower, a bee sees a purple one and a colour blind dog sees a grey one, are we not all correct ? It is the same flower, however the limits of our individual perceptions lead us to think that we disagree.

Húrin

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Can there be multiple true Christian denominations? What process is used to decide which ones are true and which ones are false?

if Christs message was so clear, why can't people agree on it?

All Christian Churches do agree on Christ's message: follow him if you want salvation from judgement, and do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you. Whatever their differences, all churches that affirm the core creeds are parts of the true Church. There is no need for one true denomination.

kelly1 wrote: »

So this person decides to investigate Christianity. They will soon discover that different Christian denominations have different teachings.

Our seeker would naturally be dissatisfied with this situation. He/she, being an intelligent, logical person will know that a true religion, if there is one, would have to be revealed by God.

So how does this person decide which flavour of Christianity is authentic? ie. which church/denomination is true to what Jesus actually taught?

Any ideas?

Most of what denominations disagree on is not that fundamental (with some exceptions, of course; such as predestination and transubstantiation). However, Biblical ambiguity about these matters does not diminish the truth. I think it is a good thing. If there was only one Christian church it could have a leadership that became authoritarian and corrupt. The ambiguity of the Biblical texts gets us to exercise our critical faculties. I don't think that the hunt for certainty is a necessity.

Rookie72

Phototoxin wrote: »

why do people think that the truth is mutually exclusive?

If I see a red flower, a bee sees a purple one and a colour blind dog sees a grey one, are we not all correct ? It is the same flower, however the limits of our individual perceptions lead us to think that we disagree.

hmm... a very perceptive insight of you phototoxin.

Indeed, a persons view can indeed be different. I am glad that having two seperate accounts of the Saviours teachings are available to all, and that both give a witness and testify of the Divinity of the Messiah.

Indeed a piece of wood with just one nail can be turned any way, BUT if you have two or more nails in that piece of wood it becomes firm, and will not move/turn.

I am grateful for the simplicity that there is in the Gospel of JESUS CHRIST.:)

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

All Christian Churches do agree on Christ's message: follow him if you want salvation from judgement, and do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you. Whatever their differences, all churches that affirm the core creeds are parts of the true Church. There is no need for one true denomination.

Yes but if that was Christ's message the New Testament would be a few paragraphs long.

The devil, as they say, is in the details.

There are a ton of different Christian denominations because Christians have not all decided exactly how one actually goes about "following Jesus", or even what "do unto others" actually means in practice.

And by that very token is the suggestion from all that that it is possible to get following Jesus wrong, ie believe you are following him but actually not be following him and wind up in hell.

So it is really a bit pointless to say that Christ's message is clear. It is like saying the best way to travel from Paris to Thailand is clear, you start in Paris and you travel to Thailand, there, simple. Of course without knowing how one actually does that you are going to end up in trouble.

Zombrex

Charco raised a very good point that was, some what unsurprisingly, swept quickly under the rug, but that I think is far more important to Kelly's original question that he was given credit for.

The idea that a non-Christian seeking the true religion and evaluating Christianity and all it's denominations, should go back to the New Testament as the original source of Christianity is flawed thinking because the New Testament is not the original source of Christianity. The books of the New Testament are in themselves a form of denomination of Christianity. Yes, by far the most successful one, but does success have anything to do with truth?

I'm not saying I want to get into a big long discussion about why each book is or is not divinely inspired, but if people want to honestly answer Kelly's question rather than simply using it as a way to toot their religion's horn, they shouldn't ignore that.

The question is not how does a Christian who already subscribes to the idea that the New Testament are the correct set of books decide which Christian demonination to follow, but rather how does a non-Christianity, who has no preconceived notions about what is correct or not correct, determine this.

Food for thought me thinks

sorella

Simple really.

He is attracted first to those who are living the Word and not just talking about it.

In whom they see the Living Lord Jesus.

It has little initially to do with denom or doctrine.

Because Jesus is about love, and the actions of love, living flesh not dry bones.

To use phototoxoim's image, the bee is attracted not to the colour but to the sweetness.

Or as Jesus puts it, the Light shining, the leaven, the salt . Strong physial images.


Wicknight wrote...
"The question is not how does a Christian who already subscribes to the idea that the New Testament are the correct set of books decide which Christian demonination to follow, but rather how does a non-Christianity, who has no preconceived notions about what is correct or not correct, determine this. "s

Zombrex

sorella wrote: »

He is attracted first to those who are living the Word and not just talking about it.

Which version of the Word? Quakers? Mormons? Baptists? Catholics?

sorella wrote: »

It has little initially to do with denom or doctrine.

Yes but if people can be not actually following Jesus, but still living well and righteously, doesn't that imply that one cannot trust this as a measure of what is theological truth?

sorella wrote: »

Because Jesus is about love, and the actions of love, living flesh not dry bones.

Any only Christians (Christians following the correct denomination?) display and act with love?

Can you see the problem with this?

sorella wrote: »

To use phototoxoim's image, the bee is attracted not to the colour but to the sweetness.

Bit of a bad analogy. A lot of bees get eaten while gathering honey.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but if that was Christ's message the New Testament would be a few paragraphs long.

The devil, as they say, is in the details. .

I didn't say that that was all Jesus had to say. I said it was at the core of what he said. All else that he said hangs on those teachings.

There are a ton of different Christian denominations because Christians have not all decided exactly how one actually goes about "following Jesus", or even what "do unto others" actually means in practice.

Of course, and one of the purposes of the rest of the New Testament is to discuss what that means. It leaves enough room to avoid exact prescription on everything, but not so much that there are no practices it excludes form the definition of following Jesus.

And by that very token is the suggestion from all that that it is possible to get following Jesus wrong, ie believe you are following him but actually not be following him and wind up in hell.

I do not believe that anybody who follows Jesus as their God, and truly believes that, has much chance of dying. You seem to insist that there must be one true Christian denomination, if any of them are true. I don't think that there needs to be a true denomination. Many can be true at the same time.

So it is really a bit pointless to say that Christ's message is clear.

I didn't say his message was clear - I just said it had core teachings.

Wicknight wrote: »

The idea that a non-Christian seeking the true religion and evaluating Christianity and all it's denominations, should go back to the New Testament as the original source of Christianity is flawed thinking because the New Testament is not the original source of Christianity. The books of the New Testament are in themselves a form of denomination of Christianity. Yes, by far the most successful one, but does success have anything to do with truth?

There is no evidence of a pre-Paul Christianity that differed from what he taught. The books that make up the New Testament were widely read by churches before they became part of the official canon.

The question is not how does a Christian who already subscribes to the idea that the New Testament are the correct set of books decide which Christian demonination to follow, but rather how does a non-Christianity, who has no preconceived notions about what is correct or not correct, determine this.

Adult people who have no preconceived notions do not exist.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

Which version of the Word? Quakers? Mormons? Baptists? Catholics?

They all follow the same Gospels! Those books are not so wide open to interpretation that you can get anything from them, (e.g. you can't get anything akin to Viking theology from them). That is why there are so many similarities between all the denominations.

You can work out to a degree what church is closer to one's own interpretation of the Gospels. If they do not live up to what they teach, then they may be charlatans, and it casts their teaching (i.e. interpretation) into doubt as well.

However, if the people of another church do live up to what they teach, one may conclude that they are receptive to and being guided by the Holy Spirit.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

(e.g. you can't get anything akin to Viking theology from them).

I don't know why you guys keep saying things like that, as if it matters to the question at hand.

Are they different enough that some of these denominations, if the followers follow to the letter what they teach, they will not be saved?

If a Catholic who interprets the Bible as given holy power to the Pope just as saved as a Quaker? If a Mormon just as saved as the Baptist?

If the answer is yes one wonders why all these different denominations exist in the first place.

If the answer is no then it becomes quite important to figure out which is the correct interpretation of the Bible.

Húrin wrote: »

However, if the people of another church do live up to what they teach, one may conclude that they are receptive to and being guided by the Holy Spirit.

That is a bit ridiculous given the population sizes of these denominations. If you know 4 Baptists and they all beat their children do you conclude that Baptists are not being guided by the Holy Spirit, or just that you should meet more Baptist?

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

Are they different enough that some of these denominations, if the followers follow to the letter what they teach, they will not be saved?

No, because that would require that a Scripture refutes the teaching of Jesus, which is not the case.

If a Catholic who interprets the Bible as given holy power to the Pope just as saved as a Quaker?

Yes.

If the answer is yes one wonders why all these different denominations exist in the first place.

The details. They agree on the core teachings.

That is a bit ridiculous given the population sizes of these denominations. If you know 4 Baptists and they all beat their children do you conclude that Baptists are not being guided by the Holy Spirit, or just that you should meet more Baptist?

Four isn't enough. I specifically gave the example of a church. If I knew four Baptists all of whom beat children, I would conclude that they themselves as individuals were probably not seeking the guidance of the spirit. I wouldn't judge their whole denomination on it.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

Four isn't enough. I specifically gave the example of a church. If I knew four Baptists all of whom beat children, I would conclude that they themselves as individuals were probably not seeking the guidance of the spirit. I wouldn't judge their whole denomination on it.

Ok, what number would you judge their whole denomination on?

sorella

There is only one Jesus.

And theology is man made whereas Jesus is God. Ignore theology and focus on the Living Lord Jesus.

It is not about living "righteously" but about knowing and loving and obeying the living Christ.

Your arguments thus are hollow.

Fill them with Jesus.

Wicknight wrote: »

Which version of the Word? Quakers? Mormons? Baptists? Catholics?


Yes but if people can be not actually following Jesus, but still living well and righteously, doesn't that imply that one cannot trust this as a measure of what is theological truth?


Any only Christians (Christians following the correct denomination?) display and act with love?

Can you see the problem with this?


Bit of a bad analogy. A lot of bees get eaten while gathering honey.

Zombrex

sorella wrote: »

There is only one Jesus.

Yes but there are different accounts of what he said and did.

Considering none of you have met Jesus I would think it would be important to figure out which, if any or all, of the accounts of what he said or did are accurate.

sorella wrote: »

And theology is man made whereas Jesus is God. Ignore theology and focus on the Living Lord Jesus.

Without the "man made theology" you wouldn't even know he had existed, so that doesn't sound like such a good idea.

sorella wrote: »

It is not about living "righteously" but about knowing and loving and obeying the living Christ.

And how do you tell is someone knows and loves and obeys the living Christ?

It is a bit pointless to say that others will set an good example if you can't tell what example they are setting.

Also, how do you obey Jesus without reference to the Bible? How do you obey Jesus if you don't know what he wants you to do?

Do we just figure it out ourselves? Jesus wants me to divorce my wife?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Without the "man made theology" you wouldn't even know he had existed, so that doesn't sound like such a good idea.

Not so. The gospels are a testimony. The 'man made theology' comes later.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Not so. The gospels are a testimony. The 'man made theology' comes later.

I'm talking about the gospels. What ever Sorella wants to call it, I'm talking about the gospels.

My point is that without the gospels none of you would know anything about Jesus. So one cannot ignore them and focus on the "Living Jesus"