There is only one true church

[face2face]

The next slide could have me banned from the forum, so best leave it there I think!
If you are associated with any of her doctrines, you cannot be included in the true Body of Christ.
F2F

 

[rockytopva]

I am a member Pentecostal Holiness. I used to think they were as good as they got...

Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: - Revelation 3:12

But... Like the Methodist before us the revival is only good for a generation or two. I had a friend visit a Holiness church and a woman walks up to him saying, "You know you are sitting in my pew?" Which to me is an example of how unfriendly Holiness folk can turn out.

 

[Augustin56]

I am a member Pentecostal Holiness. I used to think they were as good as they got...

Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: - Revelation 3:12

But... Like the Methodist before us the revival is only good for a generation or two. I had a friend visit a Holiness church and a woman walks up to him saying, "You know you are sitting in my pew?" Which to me is an example of how unfriendly Holiness folk can turn out.

You might find the following video interesting. It's about a Pentecostal minister (Alex Jones) who became Catholic.

Deacon Alex Jones: Former Pentecostal Minister - The Coming Home Network

Share via: Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email More Deacon Alex Jones returns to the Journey Home Program for this episode of questions from the viewers. Deacon Jones was raised as a

chnetwork.org

 

[Earburner]

If you believe what Christians have believed and have taught in all generations, then you're built upon the Apostles. But if you're particular faith..what you think is so important to say, is something that only began to be said in 500 AD or in 1000 AD or in 1500 AD or in 1959 AD..whatever you're in, as good as it might be, is inadequate and is something less than the church of Christ. It isn't Apostolic. There is one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and that church has been teaching the gospel and preaching the Christian faith for 2000 years. It is evangelical, but not Protestant. It is Orthodox, but not Jewish. It is Catholic, but not Roman. It is not non-denominational, it is pre-denominational. It has been believed, taught, preserved, defended, and died for. It is the Faith that has established the universe. Proclaiming the Truth since 34 AD. The Church began on the day of Pentecost after Christ's resurrection.

Yes! It's the invisible church of God's "Born Again" Saints of NEW creatures, being that of a NEW creation, literally.

They, the salt of the earth" can be found "sprinkled" among all the denominational churches, that preach the Lord Jesus Christ, who has come in flesh, was crucified, died, was buried and then resurrected, being Himself the FIRSTborn from the dead, the Savior for all of mankind, who are of faith in Him, and are "converted" by Him, and in Him.
Hallelujah, Amen!!

 

[TLHKAJ]

I am a member Pentecostal Holiness. I used to think they were as good as they got...

Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: - Revelation 3:12

But... Like the Methodist before us the revival is only good for a generation or two. I had a friend visit a Holiness church and a woman walks up to him saying, "You know you are sitting in my pew?" Which to me is an example of how unfriendly Holiness folk can turn out.

A lot of "holiness" folk are extremely self-centered and prideful, believing themselves to be holy by their own works ...they have taken their eyes off Christ who saves, and onto self. That never ends well.

 

[amadeus]

How do you know you are surrendering to the Holy Spirit and following its lead? That again is highly subjective. Some claim to follow the Holy Spirit and do some insane things like biting themselves with a rattlesnake in a church in Texas to put God to the test. If for some reason circumstances do not allow one to participate in church or the Divine Liturgy, then there is no problem because God is just and is able to take that into account. But if I'm able-bodied and all I'm doing is laying around on a couch talking about how I trust Jesus but never attend church, then it raises the question.

Every morning I surrender to God. You ask how I know and say it is subjective. The answer is between me and Him. Do others such as yourself believe what I say? Can you know that I do? That is up to God if He chooses to confirm to others what He confirms to me. I will testify but who must believe my testimony?

I remember many years ago meeting with a snake handler in rural Oklahoma. We were searching for a particular church we intended to visit and met him at the intersection of two dirt roads. He was a nice fellow but was unable to find the church we sought, but we carried on a long conversation with him about God and the scriptures. Of course we tried to convince of the error of his ways. He knew all the verses and had heard all of the arguments. He agreed with our criticisms, but... he said that he had grown up in that church. It was his way of life and his way of worshipping God. He was already in his 60's and he would not change. We went away close to being friends with him in spite of our differences. We never saw him again and we never did find the church we were looking for...

All of my life, I attended a church regularly somewhere until recent years. It is unlikely that I will find another home church, but I won't tempt God by saying it could not happen.

You already know that the multitude of differences is due to so many people leading themselves too much of the time. That's why need the church, we need some form of worldy authority. You know, we also technically don't need a government as long as everyone "is good" but yet we have to have a government. And God condones governments too. Romans 13:1

You say that we need some form of worldly authority. I might agree... except that I would not use the word, "worldly":

Eph 4:11	And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Eph 4:12	For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Eph 4:13	Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
Eph 4:14	That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

 

[rockytopva]

A lot of "holiness" folk are extremely self-centered and prideful, believing themselves to be holy by their own works ...they have taken their eyes off Christ who saves, and onto self. That never ends well.

I came into a Pentecostal Holiness church that was full of good hearted souls. As a former Baptist I was amazed to see the quality of folks go from absolutely wonderful to terrifically bad... All within the same mindset! And then to see a "What's wrong with the church!" folk arise who even though they maybe right... They are still just as bad as the people they are pointing fingers at. And so... I am embarrassed!

 

[Dan Clarkston]

Again, why not ASK why we believe what we believe

I don't need to ask since I have researched what catholics believe by reading their own published material and comparing what they say with what the Lord says in His Word..

The catholics teach things that are not taught by Jesus and His Apostles so the catholkic so called "church" is actually a cult that teaches a different jesus and another gospel.

Why do catholics pray to saints?

Because they are deceived by the devil, that's why.

You might find the following video interesting. It's about a Pentecostal minister (Alex Jones) who became Catholic.

That's sad that this guy was tricked by the devil to embrace doctrines of demons. Very sad for him.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

A lot of "holiness" folk are extremely self-centered and prideful, believing themselves to be holy by their own works ...they have taken their eyes off Christ who saves, and onto self. That never ends well.

Yeah, the reformers frequently say that because they believe Christians cannot help but sin all day everyday and they celebrate their sin conscious lifestyle! They even claim God made them to be sinners!

These are the folks you hear about in the news like Robert Morris who though he just couldn't help but molest that little girl and believes he was in right standing with God as he was doing the molesting.

He's lucky the girl's father didn't shoot him!

 

[Athanasius377]

I hesitate to conclude that "the doctrine of the Mass doesn't yet exist in Justin's time" simply because "sacrifice" and "priest" aren't mentioned in Justin Martyr's First Apology. Perhaps I am not understanding what you mean by "the doctrine of the Mass." Liturgy evolves, but I think the roots of what is recognizable as a Mass can be found in Justin's account, particularly once we sprinkle in what we see in The Didache ch. 9 and 10. The rudiments of a second-century Mass are taking shape.

What I mean by the doctrine of the Mass is that it is a propitiatory sacrifice made by a priest (or re-presented) of God the Son to God the Father. Yes, I agree that the liturgy is taking shape but the sacrifice that is being offered is one of praise and thanksgiving and not a propitiatory sacrifice. That is what I am objecting to. I have no issue with liturgy since every church body has a liturgy whether they recognize it or not.

 

[Athanasius377]

But they were not in use anywhere close to the extent that one might think they were and most people back then were also illiterate, hence the prominence of iconography in churches. Less than 8% of the population of the ancient world was able to read and write and it would have most likely been the wealthy. Going off on a tangent here...tradition still preceded scripture and the fact that the OT alone is what the Torah is, rebukes the argument that scripture somehow preceded tradition just because of the OT. It falls in the same boat as the Baghavad Gita of the Hindus which was also around before Christianity came to be. There's hardly any account of Jesus writing anything other than writing something in the sand. He didn't hand the apostles a Bible nor is there any record that he even told them to write one. And just because he quoted the Jewish holy books, doesn't mean Christianity started with the OT. It started with Christ.

Those who embrace sola scriptura do not fully embrace it either as they claim. Most believe in the doctrine of the Trinity and they ignore verses such as Thessalonians 2:15 and Exodus 30:1

A couple of things. First, no one is arguing that there was a single text as in a modern printed bible that was circulated in the ancient world. The ancients would have had collections of scriptures, say Paul's epistles or a collection of the gospels or some variation there of. Second, reading in the ancient world was not sitting down and reading a book like I do in my study next to a candle. Reading meant there was a reader and there would be an audience. This practice is still done in monasteries today, typically at meal times ( at least the one I visited), and is the basis for reading aloud the Scriptures during liturgy. If the scriptures were in limited use then how do explain the incredible large manuscript evidence that we have today? Why are church fathers quoting from the NT as early as the second century such as Clement of Rome and Irenaeus to name a few.

Thirdly, No one is suggesting to that there wasn't a time that scripture was not being composed and recognized as scripture (inscripturation). No one is arguing that Jesus wrote a book of Scripture however God the Holy Spirit inspired men to write what He willed them to write. Which means he kinda did. As to tradition, there are different kinds of tradition that you are combining. Some are good and valid and some are invalid. For example, the canon as a list of books is a tradition and we both agree is a fine tradition. Yet tradition only goes so far because if you are trying to shoehorn in all the Romish innovations because we accept the tradition of the canon of the NT then what do you do with the OT and Jewish traditions? For example, Jesus accepted the Pharisees' canon of the OT in Luk 11:51 (ESV)

. . . from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary.

Abel was killed in Genesis 4:4 and Zechariah was killed in 2 Chronicles 24:20-21. Genesis was and is the first book in the Jewish bible while 2 Chronicles is the last book in the Jewish ordering of the canon. So the argument goes that we should accept all the Romish traditions because we accept the canon of the NT is valid then why should we not accept all traditions of the Pharisees? There is more reason to for the latter than the former. Jesus celebrated Hanukkah and went to Synagogue, neither is prescribed in the OT. They are identical arguments. Except of course Jesus judged traditions by Scripture and rejected those found wanting in Mark chapter 7. And that my friend is what Sola Scriptura means. That Scripture alone is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church. It does not deny that certain kinds of tradition are authoritative or useful. It does mean that the church is to reject traditions that contradict Scripture like the Treasury of Merit, cultic use of icons and so forth.

 

[face2face]

Yes! It's the invisible church of God's "Born Again" Saints of NEW creatures, being that of a NEW creation, literally.

They, the salt of the earth" can be found "sprinkled" among all the denominational churches, that preach the Lord Jesus Christ, who has come in flesh, was crucified, died, was buried and then resurrected, being Himself the FIRSTborn from the dead, the Savior for all of mankind, who are of faith in Him, and are "converted" by Him, and in Him.
Hallelujah, Amen!!

Wow, it's been a long time since I've witnessed a Christian reveal the True Gospel! I wonder if you believe the Lord truly died, completely and utterly, or did he waft away as some ethereal spirit?

I imagine when the reality of this hits, many will in an instance, have the Saul on the road to Damascus experience.

F2F

 

[Athanasius377]

The New Testament was not finalized and the canon was not set until the late 4th century. Those documents were not declare "Scripture" until then. They, along with hundreds of other documents, were read to the faithful, but not as Scripture in the same sense was we take it today. As I said, some of the documents they thought would make the cut did not, such as the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas.

It was the Catholic Church, with the authority given her by Christ and the Holy Spirit guiding it, that declared authoritatively what the New Testament was...in the late 4th century. Before then, it was just conjecture.

Again, I will ask you what was Constantine commissioning in 331AD when he ordered the production of 50 bibles if he didn’t know what their content was? Or why the great uncial texts that was produced prior to the councils at the end of the 4th century had most of the canonical NT but had just a few of the apocryphal NT writings included and not the 300+ writings you mention? Of those apocryphal and psuedepigrahphal writings, there is little evidence that they were ever on the same level as the canonical NT books. Or, which is my and the historical position that the church catholic already knew what the contents of the NT were? That the councils of the late 4th century were simply affirming what the church catholic already knew. Lastly, if those aforementioned councils were the definitive authority then why did Rome feel the need to define the canon infallibly in 1546 if the issue was already settled in the late 4th century?

 

[Athanasius377]

That's a roundabout answer to me saying that anyone in heaven is alive. Talking about what heaven was originally offered for or what God created humans for is irrelevant to what I said about heaven. None of it changes the fact that anyone in heaven right now is alive.

The Bible was literally put together by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We Orthodox and Catholics are fully aware that the Bible is the word of God, we just know that's not the only gift God has given us. God also gave us the gift of Sacred Tradition, alongside the Bible..which is the word of God. Jesus and the Father are both God.

We are amillennial meaning that Christ will come one last time (we don't know when) for the final judgment and that's it, nothing more. We don't believe or obsess over the rapture or 1000 years of reign or 7 years of tribulations. We all have to endure tribulation, saved or not.

It's not twisted terminology, it's fact. If Jesus strictly taught from Jewish Scripture, we would all be Jews and not Christians. Christianity started with Jesus, not Jewish Scripture. The Jews have a totally different religion that rejects Jesus. There is no Christianity without Jesus and the NT.

Christendom is neither the modern day version nor sister version nor close cousin, etc. of first century Judaism whatsoever. Apples and oranges. Judaism is its own thing entirely on its own just like Christianity. You can actually find countless videos of Jews spitting on Christians in Israel, that's how much of a modern version of themselves they perceive Christians as. The foundation of Christianity is Christ, not Judaism. Jews have a completely different god that we don't believe in, the argument already dies right there. We don't believe in their god, they don't believe in ours. If the Jews really believed in our god, then they would proclaim that Jesus is God.

While I disagree with you on the formation of the canon, at least we are having an intramural debate. Auntie Jane is not part of the discussion as she is not playing the sport. Add to that we cannot debate the essentials to lay the foundation for the debate. In other words, you are wasting your time even responding.

A.

 

[RedFan]

What I mean by the doctrine of the Mass is that it is a propitiatory sacrifice made by a priest (or re-presented) of God the Son to God the Father. Yes, I agree that the liturgy is taking shape but the sacrifice that is being offered is one of praise and thanksgiving and not a propitiatory sacrifice. That is what I am objecting to. I have no issue with liturgy since every church body has a liturgy whether they recognize it or not.

Each Mass does not purport to sacrifice Christ anew. Consider the following excerpt from an 1884 sermon given by an Episcopal priest, Daniel C. Roberts (1841-1907), on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the consecration of his church building, St. Paul’s, in Concord, New Hampshire:

"Christ hath offered and been offered once for all. But that one offering stands in the eternity of the being of God, free from the bond and measure of time, and He who made the offering stands in the royal Priesthood of Melchisedek, without beginning of days or end of life.

"We, in our feebleness, measure by days, by years, by anniversaries, generations, ages, centuries, cycles, but eternity with God is an everlasting now, and time is not. And so we plead, and the church ceases not to plead, the sacrifice of Christ. We do it day by day, year by year, and the narrow, scoffing unbeliever dares to say that we think to repeat the sacrifice many times. But it is not so. In the presence of that altar of the one sacrifice, in the presence of the cross of Calvary, we stand to-day; and we share to-day, by His own gift and benediction, the very Priesthood of Him who offers that sacrifice. We are made an holy Priesthood, offering unceasingly, as our constant and availing plea, but not renewing, that which is never old, never anything but new, the sacrifice of Christ."

 

[RedFan]

And yet... you cannot show in God's Word where Jesus or His Apostles taught anybody to pray to Mary or any other false doctrines taught by the catholic cult.

Epic FAIL on the part of the catholics.

And you cannot show in God's Word where Jesus or His Apostles taught anybody to cut their toenails. If you cut yours, is it an "epic FAIL" on your part? Of course not!

The point I am making is that prayer to Mary (which, by the way, I do not do; I am not Roman Catholic) is not forbidden by and is not inconsistent with Scripture. Where Scripture is merely silent on a topic (like toenails), tradition has its place. What is recorded in Scripture does not capture everything that Jesus and His Apostles taught. Not by a long shot., according to John 21:25.

 

[Taken]

So then you are in agreement with the Orthodox and Catholics on apostolic succession. "God inspired men"..were the apostles not God inspired men who shared what they received from Jesus who is God? What about all the other bishops that succeeded the apostles? Were they also not God inspired men who received what the apostles received from Jesus? There's no shame in admitting the truth..in fact it is a virtue in a society under the dictatorship of relativism where the only heresy is to think there is such a thing as a heresy.

The Lord Gods…succession is not in question.

Gods Approved Word, as Revealed IN Scripture ….is not in question.

What IS in question…IS ignoring the FACT…
Every individual, acting under a TITLE…
IS TO BE “scrutinized”…”tested”… THAT that which he PREACHES, SAYS, DOES…
Can be VERIFIED IN Scripture, AS a Behavior and Teaching God HAS Approved

Where IS Gods Approval…
For a living man to pray TO dead or living earthly men?
For a living man TO bow and pray TO or before statues?

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Pearl]

No one denomination has the right to call itself the one true church. There is and has only ever been one true Church, which is made up only of those who have chosen to receive and follow Jesus and are Born Again, Spirit filled believers from whatever church background, or none, worldwide, past present and future. Those who through the revelation of the Holy Spirit have seen Jesus for who he is, recognised what he did, turned from their sin and accepted him into their lives as Lord and Saviour. Anybody who hasn’t taken these steps towards him and made that commitment is not part of the Church. And even many church-goers and even clergy are not really part of the Body of Christ.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

The point I am making is that prayer to Mary (which, by the way, I do not do; I am not Roman Catholic) is not forbidden

Actually it is.... Jesus said we are to pray to the Father in His Name and Jesus is the ONLY mediator between God and man.

Those rejecting the Lord's instructions are being led by the devil which is what happened to Adam and Eve.

They rejected the Lord's instructions and went with the devil's instructions and they died spiritually being separated from the Lord.

Those praying to mary or otherwise rejecting the Lord's instructions concerning prayer are also dead spiritually and are not abiding IN Christ as as such they are spiritually dead and not in right standing before the Lord.

Luke 6:46
And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

The reject Jesus and embrace their pope instead because they are spiritually dead.

 

[PS95]

Yeah, the reformers frequently say that because they believe Christians cannot help but sin all day everyday and they celebrate their sin conscious lifestyle! They even claim God made them to be sinners! View attachment 48275

These are the folks you hear about in the news like Robert Morris who though he just couldn't help but molest that little girl and believes he was in right standing with God as he was doing the molesting.

He's lucky the girl's father didn't shoot him!

Go look in the mirror. fornication is fornication. Get your own house in order. Otherwise you will be assigned to the hypocrites.