Denominations

[RyanB]

Lots of good juicy bits here...I'll try my best to respond to the OP before anything else on here. I'm wordy enough as it is.

Also if there are others then how can we all be christians if we do not beleive the same thing? How are these diffrences justified biblicaly?

It's all about how specific you are when you define something. I would define a Christain as somebody who is a Christ-follower; Jesus is their #1 Lord. Believing Jesus exists is not enough, as people cannot be a slave to two masters. A non-denoninational person who follows Christ and a catholic who follows Christ are both Christians.

Example: suppose I start the First Church of Bacon. I declare our statement of faith is as such:
"We, the First Church of Bacon, believe that to be saved...one must be Christ-followers. And enjoy bacon."

Now, think about it. First of all...do you really trust somebody who doesn't enjoy bacon? I don't. Secondly, bacon would be served at most church events...what a great environment for increasing the size of your congregation! Lastly, bacon-eating is biblically acceptable, which is more than I can say for many denominations. So, what do you think? Would attendees of my church who were followers of Jesus and believed 100% one must eat bacon to go to heaven be saved? The answer is: yes.

Are we correct in statement on bacon? Of course not...our belief in what salvation is does not match up with reality. It isn't truth. However, God's requirement is not that we understand salvation completely...it's simply that Jesus is the lord of our life. It's also not that we understand everything in the bible completely.

Does that mean there is no harm in my proposed church of bacon? Definitely not. It's spreading a lie, creating stumbling blocks for some. I can just picture members sitting in the congregation who may not like bacon very much. They might feel inadequate upon seeing others' showy displays of bacon-eating. After a while, they might even just start pretending to like bacon so that others won't think badly of them. This will just to an even greater feeling of emptiness, anxiety, and burden. But Jesus' burden is easy, and his yoke is sunny-side up. /badpun

 

[Neirai the Forgiven]

Hey, I figured I would poke my head/ram my oar into this conversation. First off let me say that over the years I have grown in this community, and I consider all of you who have posted in this channel so far to be my brothers in Christ, so if I get "nasty" at any of you, please understand that I am doing so in a spirit of love, brotherhood, and fellowship, not in a spirit of superiority, exclusion, or elitism.

I'm posting in this thread because I see a few things here that could be really damaging, and a few hurt feelings already. I'm also posting because the area of Christian unity is dear to me. This post won't be short, but I'm hoping to keep it sweet.

A few points to make:
1. Evangelical Christians are the exception to the rule, not the rule.
To give you an idea where I'm coming from, I'm 100% Evangelical. That is to say, while I consider myself "non-denominational," having experienced and enjoyed a number of those denominations, I have never regularly attended a Catholic or an Orthodox church. That means that while I "don't believe in denominations," my cultural sense of what being means a Christian is firmly rooted in the way Evangelicals do it. I also know a fair number of Catholic Christians who I truly believe to be my brothers in Christ. I do know some 'catholics' that I suspect do not follow Christ, but they do not in any way outnumber the 'evangelicals' that I likewise suspect may not truly follow Christ.

Now, a sense of perspective: Evangelicals, all combined, make up about 25% of the Christian population, based on what I've read. This means that 75% of the Church, world wide, comes from a more traditional, pre-Reformation set of denominations.

That is to say,
75% of the Christians in the world: Believe that the authority of scripture is mediated through a carefully, prayerfully chosen council or hierarchy of leaders. I want to stress that this is the huge difference between the two. I also want to stress that the Catholic church and the Orthodox churches do not take the appointing of Popes and Patriarchs lightly.

As a result of believing in ongoing, divinely empowered leadership having guiding powers, the majority of Christendom believes in things that seem kind of odd to Evangelicals, such as icons, a more sacred understanding of Communion, and that saints are in fact separate beings from God, but wholly good due to the purifying power of God, who can be talked to through prayer.

Evangelicals are actually very odd in that they don't believe these things.

Note: I've actually been tempted to attend the Catholic church because of their superior stance on art and freedom.


2. The Spirit of God brings freedom and unity, not divisiveness. The Bible states that Christ is the head of the Church. Nobody's head ever likes it when their body is fractured. Pretty much 'nuff said.

Okay, I really oversimplified that paragraph, but I don't feel the need to go into the subject much further. I'm pretty sure that we can agree that in the Bible, the main thrust was that Christians should stick together. Now, being fallen, I believe that we tend to break the body apart by arguing about whose doctrines are superior, etc. As a general rule, I support any thing that brings the body of Christ together under Christ as the head, and oppose any thing that breaks the body of Christ apart or puts someone else over Christ.

Having a Pope does not necessarily put the Pope above Christ. Historically, this may have happened from time to time, but let us not debate the merit of denominations in history. We'll lose.

Lumping Roman Catholics in with infidels or with cults and pagans does in fact break the body of Christ apart, or at least put painful pressure on the joints.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lastly, the OP said: "Also if there are others then how can we all be christians if we do not beleive the same thing? How are these diffrences justified biblicaly?"

3. The answer is found in Paul's writings.
I know I harp about this a lot. It's because it is so crucial to the understanding of this matter. This will be a huge block of text.

Almost all of the Churches Paul wrote to were composed of two groups of Christians: Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians.

Jewish Christians had a background of Judaism. Now, remember that until the rest of Judaism kicked them out, Christians were Jews. They went to the synagogues, they kept the sacrifices, they did the rites. The only difference was that they added Jesus into the mix.

Not so the Gentiles. From what we can tell, the Gentiles had no Jewish traditions. The mix that they added Jesus to did not have a depth of knowledge about Almighty God. In fact, in a lot of cases the Gentile Christians added Jesus to pre-existing mystery cults like Mithras or to Roman rites, practices, and temple worship. This is where we get Christmas practices from.

The early Jewish Christians did not like this. They didn't like how the Gentiles weren't circumcised, how they didn't eat Kosher, and so on and so forth. Paul wrote to Churches that had strong Jewish and Gentile Christians and taught them how to live in unity with one another. Paul taught Jewish Christians that grace, not the various traditions of Judaism, were how people were saved. He taught the Gentile Christians not to use their freedom to offend the Jewish Christians, but he also told them where the lines had to be drawn between Gentile Christianity and their previous beliefs (such as in sexual unions.)

Nowadays, our churches face a lot of similar situations, in which we have tensions between the older traditions and the newer Christians without traditions or with different ones. Often in my discussions with my Catholic friends (the ones that love to discuss theology,) I compare the Catholic church to the Jewish Christians, and the Protestants to the Gentiles. In this case, I could do it in reverse.

And now, the rant.

So what if your Catholic friend might pray to Mary (not all Catholics do, by the way)? Are you saved by not praying to Mary? No! You are saved by grace, lest any one should boast that his or her prayers save them!

So what if your Catholic friend claims that without last rites, purgatory looms? Are you saved by believing that purgatory does not exist, or does not exist for Christians? No! You are saved by grace, lest any one should boast that his or her cosmology in superior in a salvific way!

What if your Protestant friend claims that your religion is a cult? Well then, he should read Paul. But you are saved by grace through Jesus Christ, and you should get over it. The act of your friend is not enough to take him away from the saving grace of God!

What, then, if you believe that the entire Catholic church practices misguided doctrines? Are we saved by our doctrines? Certainly not! It is by grace that we are saved, lest any one should boast that we have the right doctrines!

What, then, if you believe that the entire Evangelical church practices misguided doctrines? Are we saved by our doctrines? Certainly not! It is by grace that we are saved, lest any one should boast that we have the right doctrines!


Rant off. Are you still with me?

Many of you on reading the rant may have thought "yes, but the Catholic church does not believe that it is through grace that we are saved."

Yes, they do.

The Jews in Paul's time believed that they were saved by grace through circumcision. Paul did not really oppose this belief. But he opposed those who believed that they were saved by circumcision. Note the lack of grace.

Paul also opposed those who believed that only those who were saved by grace through circumcision would be truly saved. God's grace was what saved, not the circumcision.

In the Old Testament, God chose circumcision, the Law, etc., as the vehicle by which his grace would be made apparent to the Israelites/Hebrews/Jews. In our churches, we have become accustomed to other vehicles, but the fact is that it is still God's grace that saves. Whether the vehicle is an icon, or communion, or a Chris Tomlin song, or and altar call, the grace is still God's.

 

[Patriot]

What, then, if you believe that the entire Catholic church practices misguided doctrines? Are we saved by our doctrines? Certainly not! It is by grace that we are saved, lest any one should boast that we have the right doctrines!

What, then, if you believe that the entire Evangelical church practices misguided doctrines? Are we saved by our doctrines? Certainly not! It is by grace that we are saved, lest any one should boast that we have the right doctrines!

We must be careful not to throw sound doctrine out in favor of unity.

Matthew 15:7-9
Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:
8 ‘ These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 9 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

1 Timothy 4:16
Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.

1 Timothy 6:3-5
If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, 4 he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, 5 useless wranglings[a] of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself.

2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;

Unity is important within the body, but not so important that we surrender solid doctrine.

 

[Patriot]

Many of you on reading the rant may have thought "yes, but the Catholic church does not believe that it is through grace that we are saved."

Yes, they do.

Sort of. Their "Official" position is a combination of grace and works:

"If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema," (Canon 9, Council of Trent).

"If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema," (Canon 14, Council of Trent).

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html

 

[Neirai the Forgiven]

Hey, Patriot. Just figured I'd drop a line back at you. First off, let me say that I strongly agree that having solid doctrine is more or less a must for a believer. As I said above, unity is only good when it keeps Christ as the head. The effect of most (all?) bad doctrines is to put people above God, or to try to downplay or even nullify the work of Christ. Both are terrible.

Okay, so that this doesn't sound like a fight, I need to put a note in here: the next paragraphs are not addressed to Patriot. They're out for anyone to read.

I'd caution, but I'm pretty aware that you're not trying to say this, that the purpose of doctrine is to attempt to clarify what it is we're trying to follow, the will of Jesus Christ, and not to be what we are following. That being said, poor or bad doctrines tend to create divisions, confusions, and inefficient strivings in the flesh. For example, if one's doctrines teaches him or her that God still demands offerings of pigeons for the purpose of fellowship, that person is going to burn through a lot of birds unnecessarily. If a person believes that God hates him or her for some action done in the past, despite God's love, grace, forgiveness, the person's confession, et al., that person will feel a lot of unnecessary guilt and torment.

Believing those example doctrines should not prevent someone from entering the kingdom of heaven if they have a real trust of Jesus Christ's sacrifice and if the doctrines do not cause them to reject the grace of God. But they will certainly hamper the path and make it more difficult to walk than necessary.

I'm going to be blunt here: I feel that sometimes Protestants suffer from an idolatry of doctrine; that is to say that they trust in particular doctrines rather than in the person and actions of Jesus Christ. I am not pointing fingers at anyone here; if you feel convicted that I might be talking to you, ask the Spirit to guide you to see where and when you might trust doctrines for your salvation. Now, I add a caveat: also ask the Spirit to teach you where your doctrines might be flawed.

(Aside: I do believe that certain churches, including several I have attended and several I have not, have unhelpful doctrines. I don't believe those churches necessarily are anathema. I will not bring up my issues with any given denominations in this thread, as that is not what it has become a thread about.)


Now, I have to jump back to Patriot. I'm not convinced that the quotes from the Council of Trent mean that the Catholic Church officially believe in Works + Grace. Now, they're confusingly old quotes, so let me tell you what I mean:

"If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema," (Canon 9, Council of Trent).

I will paraphrase: If anyone says 'a sinner is justified by belief alone, meaning the person does not have to do anything else to be saved, and it does not matter if he or she changes his or her will in any way,' let that person be anathema.

In other words, this statement is a directive against a person who says "I believe I'm a Christian" but lives their life entirely without any surrender to God or any change of their will or their ways before or after this statement. I know there is more than one belief concerning such a person, but most of the churches I've been to would also consider such an unrepentant person to be anathema.

To put this statement into Biblical context, when asked what to do to be saved, Paul replied "confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart the God raised him from the dead." Both are required.

"If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema," (Canon 14, Council of Trent).

Again, paraphrase: If a person says that people are forgiven and made right with God because he or she has the confident belief that he or she is saved, or if a person says that nobody is saved except for the person who has such a confident belief, and if the person who says these things believes that it is simply by making these claims that a person is saved, that person is anathema.

Basically, this statement goes up against two differing sides of a coin. On the one hand, a person may believe that they are saved, but be wrong. It can happen. The person may have no doctrines or unfounded doctrines or simply grow up in the church and never know about following God because they simply went with the flow of others who were. According to the Council, that's not enough.

On the other side of the coin you have the person who has no tolerance for doubters. "If you ever aren't sure, you must not be saved!" is this guy's tag-line. Moreover, this guy claims that only those who believe that doubters aren't saved are the real Christians. Thankfully, the Council says that this is not correct, either.


Now, at the end of this spiel I really hope that what I said is not read as offensive. Once again I do consider all of you to be my brothers (and sisters if I'm wrong on reading the genders of the posters so far) in Christ; I do not write to offend, even if I did just spend seven paragraphs saying "I think you might be misquoting the Council of Trent." It is my earnest prayer that this post brings you closer together, and not by having you build trenches on either side of a battleground .

 

[Sassamo]

"I feel that sometimes Protestants suffer from an idolatry of doctrine; that is to say that they trust in particular doctrines rather than in the person and actions of Jesus Christ."

Are you referring to 'man made' doctrines, or the scriptures themselves? If you're meaning man made, then I would agree with you. I call those 'standards', and everyone has their own standards. However, if you're referring to the actual scriptures, then I must disagree. If our understanding or thoughts about who Christ was/is differ in any way from the scriptures, then we're wrong and are guilty of worshipping a false god that doesn't exist. If the Bible clearly says one thing, but we say, 'I think I know God pretty well, and he wouldn't do that...', we need to correct our thinking. The Bible is our only true and unquestionable source of information toward who said/did anything, and how they acted in particular situations, so we can't know anything outside what the Bible teaches. And if there's a lack of information in a particular area, we can only speculate what we believe based on what we know.


The Bible was not written to confuse us. Anyone has the ability to read it and understand it. It doesn't take anyone special to read/interperate it, and enlighten us on what everything means. When I post scriptures and give my viewpoints on them, you're free to look them up and study them on your own. While it's true that Grace through Faith is the only way to Salvation, that doesn't mean that you should blindly agree/ignore everything else that's going on around you. I may get saved in a bacon loving church, but eventually I'm going to realize that there is no doctrine teaching that I must enjoy bacon, and even though I now have all these nice bacon loving friends, I'm still going to find a body of like minded believers to grow with.

I firmly believe that there are no 2 people on earth the ever had/will agree on 100% everything bible related, let alone a whole church, but there should be some basepoint in which they all agree. That's why every curch has their own 'Statement Of Faith', that lists the core belief of that church, everthing else is just a standard/personal interpretation. I also firmly believe that if I'm going to be a member of a church, I must fully agree with their statement of faith. If at some point I am enlightened with the truth, and it differs, I must leave that church. That's actually kind of like the situation I'm in now, where the church I've been going to and would like to become a member of has actually decided to put a more specific end time belief in their statement of faith, and I'm not quite sure if I believe in it, so I'm studying it out thouroughly before making a decision.

In general, while it's certainly possible for people to be saved in many of the different variations of christianity, and also possible to have inter-denominational friendship, it's a dangerous game to play saying that we all share one thing in common, and everything else is ok. That's leading down the road to a one-world-religion. I've been to a few churches where the pastor has a real difficult time answering the question, "What does this church believe?", because they're afraid to 'offend me' or lose my attendance. That's my cue to get out of there. How can a church stand if they have nothing to stand on. Everyone may be part of the same body by believing on Jesus, but how can that body function if everyone disagrees on what their doing? That doesn't mean we can't have fellowship with one another, or that one can't teach another a truth, but when we start sacrificing our beliefs in God to promote 'Unity', we're doing more harm than good.

 

[Patriot]

Now, at the end of this spiel I really hope that what I said is not read as offensive. Once again I do consider all of you to be my brothers (and sisters if I'm wrong on reading the genders of the posters so far) in Christ; I do not write to offend, even if I did just spend seven paragraphs saying "I think you might be misquoting the Council of Trent." It is my earnest prayer that this post brings you closer together, and not by having you build trenches on either side of a battleground .

I'm going to start off with this. I am neither offended nor seeking to offend. If I am indeed misquoting/misinterpreting then you would be correct to rebuke me and I would be wise to accept it.

That being said, after reviewing the Catholic website I still do not see error in my thinking (emphasis mine):

We now come to the different states in the process of justification. The Council of Trent assigns the first and most important place to faith, which is styled "the beginning, foundation and root of all justification" (Trent, l.c., cap.viii). Cardinal Pallavicini* (Hist. Conc. Trid., VIII, iv, 18) tells us that all the bishops present at the council fully realized how important it was to explain St. Paul's saying that man is justified through faith. Comparing Bible and Tradition they could not experience any serious difficulty in showing that fiduciary faith was an absolutely new invention and that the faith of justification was identical with a firm belief in the truths and promises of Divine revelation (l. c.: "illumque [Deum] tanquam omnis justitiae fontem diligere incipiunt"). The next step is a genuine sorrow for all sin with the resolution to begin a new life by receiving holy baptism and by observing the commandments of God. The process of justification is then brought to a close by the baptism of water, inasmuch as by the grace of this sacrament the catechumen is freed from sin (original and personal) and its punishments, and is made a child of God.

I would argue that we are justified by Faith and that works (Baptism, following the commandments, etc.) are merely an outward result of our Faith (as James says, Faith without works is dead). From the paragraph above, Catholics believe that one must be baptized to be saved (along with observing the commandments).

 

[ewoksrule]

saw this quote today and it made me think of this thread....

R. C. Sproul: The only way anyone can be saved is by works. Justification by faith means we’re justified by Christ’s works alone. Eph 2:8-9