ChristiansUnite Forums

The Muslims and Buddhists have less sects then Christians. We have tens of thousands of sects. Why are we so much more divided then the non-believers?

Tibby:

The Catholic Church is responsible for the divisions that exist today. Because "the doctrines of men" and "the traditions of men" supplanted the Word of God, those who desired to follow the Lord Jesus Christ separated themselves from the apostasy that flooded the Church from the time of Constantine. This brought division, and one of the chief divisions was Orthodox Catholic and Roman Catholic. Had the Church of Rome not falsely claimed supremacy over Christendom, this division may not have occurred.

Also, on one hand, the Catholic Church vigourously defended the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity. On the other hand, it introduced false teaching such as baptismal regeneration, devotion to Mary, veneration of the saints, relics, rosaries, and a host of other "Catholic" teachings which have no foundation in Scripture but are derived from Babylonian paganism (found worldwide). By the 14th century the Catholic Church was a vast, corrupt, and bloody tyranny, far removed from the truth of Christ and Christ Himself.

The crusades were a good example of the false teaching of the Church and the usurped  power of the popes.  Christ never sanctioned such cruelty and brutality by Christian "knights", but the popes did to their own political advantage. The popes wanted power, prestige, and privileges reserved for kings ans emperors!

Then came the Reformation , and the Catholic response to it, the counter-Reformation, and bloody persecutions of genuine Christians. Foxe's Book of Martyrs will provide you will all the proof you need.

Then the Reformers themselves could not unite over doctrine, and they also did not totally purge out all the false teachings of the Roman Church. They also persecuted other genuine Christians such as the Anabaptists. So there were more divisions.

At the root of all divisions is the fact that even though Christians are saved by grace, their sin natures are not eradicated through the new birth. If Christians do not "walk in the Spirit", then they "walk after the flesh".  And when they do so, Satan begins to control their lives. Satan's greatest weapon against Christians is strife and division. Satanic deception of those not grounded in the Word leads to false dcotrines and further divisions.

However, God also uses "heresies", which are basically divisions over doctrine, to bring to light those who are genuine and those who are false. There have always been and will alwasy be false teachers, false prophets, and false apostles until the Second Coming of Christ.  That is why Christians are exhorted to "prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good".  That often means further division.  The divisions among evangelical and fundamentalist Christians are mostly over points of doctrine.

Since Bible Christianity is the only true "religion" (if you will) it stands to reason that it will be constantly under attack, from within and from without.  On earth, there are still "wheat" and "tares" until Judgment Day. Other religions are seldom under attack, since they all originate with Satan or Satanic deception.  

However, the one true Church -- the Body of Christ -- consisting of all blood-bought and blood-washed believers, is ONE spiritual Body, with ONE Head -- Christ -- who is eternally united to His body. In eternity, all divisions will be erased.

I have one thing to say- I agree.

Secondly, Amen.

aw

I also agree.

That being the case, why are there so many more Baptist sects then there are Catholic ones? The rebellion does contribute to the large split of Christianity, and that is the Split between the Sacrament/Ancient Church and the Protestant/Evangelical Church. However that does not account for even 1/2 the denominations in the earth today.

???

What the Op was saying, Tibby, is that all the sects came out of the catholic church. Most of the acts of the catholci church since the crusades were not Christian at all. It might take as many years to correct the damage done is the years it took to create it.

In all of your posts in this thread all we have seen is your opinion.  Can you support any of the claims you have made with facts or at least references to reliabel sources with quotes and specifics or do you just think you can get away with vague accusations and everyone will just accept what you say as accurate?  I for one will not.

I do not say that there have not been errors made in the name of the Church or byt hose claiming to in some way represent the Catholic Church but no one has ever shown me an error in the doctrine espoused by the Church, except in the same vague way in which you throw out unfounded and unsupportable accusations.

Let's get specific.  If you can provide a statement of doctrine from the Catholic Church and then show me specific scripture that you feel it contradicts and provide your interpretation of that scripture.  

I am sure either your understanding of the Church doctrine will be flawed or worse yet prejudiced or your interpretation of scripture will be inconsistent with scripture as whole.

If you are unable or are afraid to do provide that type of formal argument against the Catholic Church then I would ask you to stop simply slinging insults you cannot or will not support.

I'd say that's the pot calling the kettle black, Tibbiy. I have quoted how Jesus felt about Mary. I have quoted that Jesus said not to call anyone 'father,' how not to make fasting a public event, where the bible said that Jesus had brothers even though poepe Leo said he  didn't, and many more quotes. I'm not going to repeat myself umpteen times. It is you who needs to find biblical scripture to support the catholic doctrine. So far, I haven't seen much in Jesus's words that does support it! Even if you can find something in Jesus's words that resembles even one thing in the catholic doctrine, the rest of the doctrine is man-made and much of it CONTRADICTS Jesus's words.  Now it's your turn to provide scripture.

Yea, it's the Catholics who keep dividing and splitting into new sects and force all the protestant groups to keep fragmenting. Yea right, talk about some very confused and misdirected people, how about the fact that since the 'reformation' and the whole Bible alone theory came about,
all thats happened in protestant circles is that when there is a disagreement, well heck lets form our own group that teaches what we want to hear, and then when we have another disagreement, well no big deal we'll start a new group.
          There is a simple explanation of course, it doesn't work,
each group has bits and pieces of the truth, but not all, why else would there be so many different sects, each w/ their own ideas on salvation, rapture, communion, baptism, once saved always saved, and on and on.
        Talk about doctrines of men, and false teachings, but what do you expect when you get pride and egos involved.
After all that seems to be what drives a fair share of the people on this forum, they keep claiming all they're interested in is the truth, but due to poor information, poor knowledge of history, plain old bigotry, pride, egos, and just wanting to argue, they just keep spewing the same tired old stuff.
         It really is sad to see self professed 'true Christians' filled W/ such hate, bigotry,and misinformation, hopefully one day you will learn to act like the 'true Christians' you all profess to be, until that time some of us misinformed, idol worshipping, Bible burning, crusade causing Catholics will be praying for you.
       

   

I think you are mistaking who wrote which post.  It was not Tibby it was I who wrote that post.  But I am not asking you to throw all types of accusation around without a focus I am asking you to pick one and do a thorough and careful analysis which I have not seen you do ever.  If you think you have please tell me the thread and post number and I will respond to it - to save you having to restate yourself.  But I have been following your posts and have never seen you do more than a superficial review of a single verse, never looking at related verses to see if your interpretation hold us as consistent.  

For example your issue about how Jesus felt about His mother Mary based on Him calling her woman.  You never bother to consider what the attitude you accuse our Lord of would mean in light of the commandment to honor your father and mother, nor do you consider that the word "mother" Christ uses (when studied in the original language) is the same word used to describe Eve in the Old Testament so we see Christ pointing to Eve as a TYPE of Mary.  Or stated another way He is setting up Mary as the second Eve, just as He is the second Adam.  By jumping to conclusions or interpretations based on a simplistic literal reading of a single verse in isolation like you have done and not considering the type of points I have just made above is typical of how you formulate your doctrines and is the reason your make such mistakes.

Division breeds Division. Splits split into more splits. New denominations spring up. It is the way of man.

But Christ and His church abounds in spite of this. It is the way of God.

Christ's church never changes due to the whims of men but is there for anyone to be added to upon obedience to the gospel.

Are you saying the Protestant Churches of today are still dealing with the issues of the 1500 AD Catholic Church? ??? :-\

Again, more attacks instead of scripture from Christ to back up your claims. I assume this means you don't have any. Rich is particularly good at attacking rather than explaining. Attacks only show frustration at having nothing else to say. I will respond when you can provide scripture from Christ telling us that we should call the pope, "Holy Father", that Mary didn't have any more sons, that we should pray to Mary, and that we should make fasting a public event. Otherwise your attacks are just attempts to hurt people, not help them.

Try reading your own posts sometime.

Amen!!

What is actually what a lot of the Eastern Churches claim… Rome left them, so it is only nature the cycle continue... Interesting theory, at least.

Yea Heidi, once again a little confusion on your part, look at the posts you've made, and the subjects you've started.
Now whos attacking who again? Please explain it w/ one of your wonderful explanations, they always make so much sense. Read what you wrote, "attacks only show frustration
at having nothing to say," WOW, bravo, i think you finally understand something, so when are you going to quit attacking, and making your hatefilled posts? So, assume what you want, it's one thing you are good at.

Again another attack instead of an explanation, Rich. You just proved my point. You also admitted that I explain my beliefs, with scripture, I might add. The fact that you and ebia don't agree with them makes them true all the more. I would really have to wonder about my beliefs if you guys agreed with me. So far, neither one of you has backed up your beliefs with scripture at all. I don't think I've even read a post of ebia's that hasn't contained an attack on someone . "By their frutis you will know them." I will now ignore any post of yours that contains an attack. That means we will have very little exchange, if any.

Need i say more?
Just one more question though, do you actually read what others write? I haven't seen ANY indication that you do.
Because if you do, you would see that i have given far more scripture to back what i believe than you have, but i guess more lies never hurts, right?
 Open your eyes(ears)thats why God gave you two of them and only one mouth.

Because it's easier to break things than it is to fix them.   :)

The Muslims and Buddhists have less sects then Christians. We have tens of thousands of sects. Why are we so much more divided then the non-believers?


I think it's a case of Is the glass of water half empty or half full type of question, Tibby.

The NT model for the Christian church, actually, is one of diversity--"...all fit together..", I think it says, in one of Paul's epistles, and that we each have different gifts, skills or contributions to offer.  I think this imagery is referred to variously in the NT.

We tend to see it negatively, becuase that typically is how new offshoots form--out of pain, sorrow and strife.  I think there's one statistic I've heard that your typical Protestant church has a shelf life of 15 years, before the next split.

My thinking is, though, that all of this is the model--albeit in human form--of the life to come--but in friendly, upbuilding diversity.  Obviously, you see this refrain now preached worldwide by virtually all religions and indeed many governments and even in the corporate world--
"can't we all just get along", and "world peace" and interdenominalism, etc.

Essentially, we have diversity only out of pain and strife.  In the world to come, there will be much diversity, as the stars and galaxies of the heavens--infinite--but out of peace that Jesus gives us.

There will still be diversity--infinite diversity most probably, but of the half-full type, instead of the half-empty type that we have here constantly on earth.

The multinationals, world churches, etc, all have it right--but only half right.  They embrace the diversity, but they leave out its Author, or they misrepresent what He has said, or what He has done, embracing instead the counterfeit author.

But until He returns, even we brethren, unfortunately, endure our differences--in my own ever larger and larger extended family, new differences surfacing all the time, for example--and many not easy to deal with.  It's difficult to be constantly flexible, constantly adapting to every new twist.

shut up.
sorry to be crude, but stop blamming ourselves!
Stop pointing fingers at our brothers in faith!
Who cares about who split from who, it's no one's fault!
And it surely does no one any good to dwell on it as a blame-shift item!

Can you imagine the apostles pointing fingers at eachother saying that it was Mark's fault that Peter and Paul disagreed?
It rediculous!

Churches vary in christiatity for one simple reason.
Free Will.
God gave it to man, and man is to use it as he pleases.
If man does not agree with another, it is his full right to go find others who do and leave the disbeliever behind to follow his own version of faith.

Yet, Buddhists and Muslims have free will as well, and even combined, we still have more Sects and splits then they do. Why is that?

Smarty pants

tibby
the problem really has nothing to do with the catholic church.. it has to do with a doctrine introduced during the reformation called private interpretation. apart from being entirely unscriptural, it is the real root of the problem.. people feel they are led by the spirit and then they dissagree. since there is no authority to end the dispute, someone to bind and loose, the church splits. i personally have seen several splits in my own church as well as several other local churches in the last ten years.... they all claim the same thing and attack with the same thing... both sides claim some exclusive knowledge because of their own private interpretation, and accuse the other of falling for traditions of men. sound familiar? there is a reason they call themselves protestants.

i am amazed though how quickly the protestants on this specific thread tried to blame the catholic church.... how silly of them. clearly they don't even understand the mechanics of their own faith, yet they are trying to define ours. they accuse the catholic church of being to powerful and binding, keeping all under rome, then turn right around and tell that rome is actually tossing all to the wind. please make up your mind people.

mike

Hi Mike -
It is my personal opinion that you should rephrase  to "some protestants".  I believe we here on C-Unite should do our part in avoiding 'wholesale labeling'.  That won't happen without an effort from each of us (me included, which is why I posted this reply)...

Heaven has a place for all who love Jesus Christ and acknowledge Him as the only way to the Father.

Love in Him,
JN

Why is it that one tree has more branches than another?
Why is it that two rocks thrown in a pond create a different amount of ripples?
Why does one house get hit by a flood while another stands?


If you want my opinion on the subject on the other hand...There's two ways to look at it...

1: The Dark Version
Because Christianity is primarily a western religion and western populations tend to have the attitude that is just right for getting into arguments and then deciding to go off and do it their way since they can't get anyone in another group to agree with them.
We argue.  Alot, about some really asinine(sp) stuff.
And we let it get to us way too much.
And thus, we seperate ourselves from eachother way too easily thanks to pretty petty issues.

2: The Brighter Possibility
We adapt to fit the concerns of the local groups at hand rather than making the local groups conform to our concerns.

This is much like business.  Multiple branches of one division with the same root but operating to serve the needs of very diverse audiances.


And of course, there is also 3: Both.

You Brighter possibilities theory is the reasoning Buddhist use as to why there is more then one sect. And yet, they have so few Sects in comparison to us.

Blaine- You make a good point, but JN is right. There are a few good protestants on the board. ;) I can't think of any off hand... ;D

sorry JN.
i did not intend to label all protestants... just those on this thread that instantly accused the catholic church...again...

my apologies to you and any other protestant who are not doing this.
mike

again brothers and sisters,  my apologies.

mike

I don't think it is the Catholic Church's fault, or anyone else’s fault.
God raises churches up, but they are run by very fallible men. So they fall away.
When someone sees that the church is in error, they start a new one. And the cycle continues. Add to that those that believe they are right and can't be wrong to start their own churches.
Remember Muslims and Buddhists and others are false gospels, Satan doesn't have that much motivation to attack them. He does have motivation to attack and divide the body of Christ.

Nope!  Jus' simple and true.  :)

Sounds like you are saying it IS someones fault. Blaming Satan, classic. Do you really think Satan is responsible for the Great Schism and Reformation? :-\

Some people pick and choose what they want from the bible some people pick and choose what they want from posts.
I also said:

Calvin and Luther and others of the Reformation could see how the church was no longer faithful to the word of God. They weren’t perfect, but God raised them up.
Concerning The Great Schism the Catholic Church had already fallen away.
Even while the bible was being written churches were falling away, the 7 churches of Revelation are an example of that. Today you would a great deal of difficulty finding a believer in that part of the world.
There were the beginnings of division in the Apostles themselves.

Galatians 2:11  But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Galatians 2:14  But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Interestingly the Catholic Church looks to Peter as their first Pope with infallible doctrine, and here the bible says his doctrine was flawed.

Oh, I read your post. That line told me nothing. It had nothing to do with my reading, it was your writing that was lacking. ::)



God forbid he post something with the word “catholic” in it, and NOT make a stab at the Roman Church... ::)

It was not a stab at the Catholic Church. It is an observation that 1,000 years before the "Great Schism" of 1,000 years ago the Catholic Church had already gone away from Gods design.
All churches do. I don't view the Catholic Church as above or below any other church.
The church took the stand the Pope can be judged by no one --- But Paul judged the so called first Pope.
In those thousand years between the crucifixion of Christ and the Great Schism there were other churches, just not as powerful and as militant as the Catholic Church.
The faithful had to maintain a low profile or be imprisoned, tortured, and repressed by those that were in power.
The Catholic Church had gone astray way before the great schism.
There are some things the Catholic church does right, but they are no better or perfect than any one else.

That leads us back to square one. We are in the top 5 largest world Religions, and we have many more splits and divisions than anyone else. And we claim to be the one with the most truth.

We can say it is a thing of culture, different cultures understand differently. But Buddhists use this same line of reasoning, and they don’t have as many splits, and they are not as competitive with other there Sects as we are. Those non-Christians sure know how to love one another.

We can blame Satan, but if that is the case, then lets give the guy a metal, because he has done a terrific job. Not only has he used our human nature to split us so much, but it appears that he has been able to teach Muslims and Buddhists to fight there human nature, because they have WAY less Sects then we do.

Ah, come on Brother Tibby - a professional student like yourself making such a sweeping statement with no supporting material?  I'm so dissappointed.  ::)  ;D

Here is what I came up with in just 15 minutes:

Islam:
The truth is that Islam is more broken into sects than even Christendom. (Aspects of Islam, MacDonald , p. 90).

Buddhism:
As there are many different sects in Christianity and many sprinkles on a rainbow donut, so too are there many different factions of Buddhism. Not having a central thesis or any current core figure of authority (such as the Pope), Buddhism has become richly diversified. In some cases, the teachings of Buddha have become intertwined with local polytheistic traditions, as in Tibetan Buddhism. In these offshoots, supernatural beings, elaborate cosmologies, rituals, and other things you certainly wouldn't call strictly "philosophical" may appear.  (http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/buddhism/buddhism.html)

Hinduism:
Hinduism is extremely catholic, liberal, tolerant, and elastic. This is the wonderful feature of Hinduism. The term ‘Hinduism’ is most elastic. It includes a number of sects and cults, allied, but different in many important points. Hinduism has, within its fold, various schools of Vedanta; Vaishnavism, Saivism, Saktism, etc. It has various cults and creeds. Hinduism accommodates all types of men.
Swami Shivananda, The Divine Life Society, Rishikesh

Christianity:
A fairly good article on the subject: http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/fbf/churches.html
 

 ;D  I think the reason that there are so many is because:

WE DONT LOVE EACH OTHER  

If suddenly we all felt an overwhelming love for each other--ALL OF US--all at the same time, then we would make it our top priority to decide what we need to agree on.

That does happen.  And then what the churches do is that they agree that Christ died for our sins.  And that includes the sins that cause our divisions.  So, really, under covers we're united.  It's just hard to tell it.  So, really, we aren't so many.  we all just have different names.  One body, many names.  

I didn’t think I need citations.

Islam, more sects then Christians? I don’t think so. Not ever close!

Lists only 8 Sects
http://www.geocities.com/defender_of_the_truth/ (http://www.geocities.com/defender_of_the_truth/)

Exact quote “Islam does not have nearly as many sects and divisions as does Christianity”
[urlhttp://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/islam/blfaq_islam_sects.htm[/url]


Buddhism, no central thesis? What about the 4 Noble Truths?
http://www.buddhanet.net/4noble.htm (http://www.buddhanet.net/4noble.htm)
http://tn.essortment.com/nobletruthsb_riuk.htm (http://tn.essortment.com/nobletruthsb_riuk.htm)
http://dharma.ncf.ca/introduction/4-Noble-Truths.html (http://dharma.ncf.ca/introduction/4-Noble-Truths.html)

Buddhism doesn’t have an much of a moral code or Deistic structure as Christianity does, and it allows for more variation in the different sects. But it does have a central Thesis.


Hinduism, millions of cult? Ok, yeah I agree with you there. ;D ;D


Sad thought, Candice. But so true. :'(

Ha-ha Tibby!  :D  We work well together!
Between us we've demonstrated that anyone with an opinion can find supporting information on the great WWW.  

(Ahem… personally I don’t think I would use an atheist website, however.)  ;D

Well, Christian sources seem to have the idea that because they worship the one, true God, they have the right to make up facts and twist info. ::) ;D Besides, that was about.com's atheist site. About.com is a good source, doesn't matter which branch.

i disagree with most of this. first calvin luther and others (zwingli?) saw areas that they thought needed reform in the church. they were not the only ones, just the ones that started new churches out of it with new doctrines. the catholic church did reform but that is another matter.

you need to state why you think the catholic church fell away by the great schism, not just make the assertion.

it is true that during the apostles own life such heresies as gnosticism had arisen and there were issues in each of the churches, but it is also clear that the orthodox nature of the church was keeping things together. that abuse will happen is no great surprise, but that doesn't mean the whole church has fallen. the very fact that we see correction in the bible should imply that these issues were there and being dealt with.


there is a difference between infallible doctrine and impeccable character. that peter was being a hypocrite in his action does not mean he was teaching error. paul doen't confront peters teaching, but he does confront his character. many people misunderstand what is meant by the pope being infallible, which is sad. but this portion of scripture does not demonstrate anything about his doctrine, only that peter too is a sinner saved by grace.

mike

From Mr. Tibbs:

Uh-oh...  Hopefully, Brother Tibby - you mean to say "because WE worship the one, true God...

You ARE a Christian - right???  ::)

(Forgive me for being so picky - I'm involved in writing contracts for construction of bridges, etc.  One little miscue, and contractors are expert at picking up on it for extra cash.)  :)

Nope, I’m Catholic ;D

Ha-ha-ha-ha!
You kill me!  ;D

Hey - wait a minute!  You killing me is breaking the 6th commandment!

Don’t you read a word Heidi Said! >:( We Catholics don’t believe in the 10 Commandments. I used to, but Heidi and Izar informed me of the fact that I didn’t. That God we have those brilliant scholars to keep us Catholics on the Right path. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

blainefabin
First of all I am not one of those people that thinks the big bad Catholic church is to be blamed for everything.
I’ve talked with SDA’s that blame the RCC for changing the Sabbath. They didn’t, God did, but that is another topic.
And here we were getting lots of comments blaming the RCC for causing the fracturing in the body of Christ.
People want to blame the Catholic church for pretty much everything.
I would not be surprised if someone tried to blame the Catholic Church for 9/11 or AIDS.
Just because I don’t blame the RCC doesn’t mean I think they are faithful to the word of God, they are not. Their doctrines are very flawed. That in it’s own is not really a problem, there is at least one fatal flaw, it is the doctrine of infallibility.
Many churches are fatally flawed from their very foundation. Being based on the teachings of Arminius, Wesley’s Methodist church was fundamentally flawed.
My great grandfather was a Methodist preacher of some standing. He had a doctorate and even when was a Superintendent he preached on occasion.
This was all about 100 years ago. He would flip if he saw the Methodist church today.
Not only do they have women ministers, they have lesbian ministers. This is not the church he helped build and so it is fractured. The RCC had nothing to do with the fracturing of the Methodist Church.
I don’t think God raised Arminius or Wesley up, the doctrine of freewill is fundamentally flawed. But there are others He has raised up to preach the truth. People like John Bunyan,  John Newton, and Charles Spurgeon were true and faithful voices working within the churches.
There are other great men of God that developed new churches.
The Southern Baptists were founded on the backs of men like James P. Boyce. http://www.founders.org/  
Boyce College, a school of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, was named after him.
James Boyce would also flip if he knew what the SBC teaches today. I used to attend a SB church. As I grew and studied I learned that what was being taught in my church was not faithful to the word. I eventually made a decision to leave. The SBC has been fractured, but not by any influence of the RCC.
These fractures are found all over, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Dutch Reformed, ETC. This is a not a surprise, the bible warns about such things.

1 Timothy 4:1 ¶  Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Matthew 24:24  For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

The signs and wonders movement has exploded in the past 50 years. Many churches, including the Catholic look to signs and wonders.

2 Thessalonians 2:4  Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
 
There are many churches that have fallen into this.
Jesus healed the sick, so you have ‘performances’ where people are healed on stage, to prove they teach the truth. I have yet to hear of anyone having a withered hand healed.
Because you ask about the Catholic church I will respond.
Only God is infallible. The only human that was infallible was Jesus, who was God made flesh. When a church claims their leader has infallible doctrine they are exalting their leader to the level of God.
Peter had a flawed doctrine, which Paul corrected.

Galatians 2:14  But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

He set down rules -- doctrine -- that the Gentiles were to live like the Jews. Rules even he did not follow.
If Peter was the first Pope then the Popes do not have perfect doctrine.
There is no solid evidence Peter ever went to Rome, so it is unlikely he had anything to do with the development of the church in Rome. That he went to Rome is a fable, the Catholic Church looks to their genealogy of Popes and teachers to give support for their teachings. The reasoning is because you have teachers that taught this in the past it must be true since it is closer to the time of Christ.
The fact is the Catholic Church was extremely powerful and suppressed those that taught differently. They controlled history.
To put your faith in the history of man instead of trusting God to reveal truth in your heart is a fundamental flaw.

1 Timothy 1:4  Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Titus 3:9  But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

I don’t need to have an extensive knowledge of the history of the Catholic church, I can know from their doctrines of today to know they are at odds with the gospel.
Wanting to raise their leaders to the level of God they tell you to refer to them as “Father”.

Matthew 23:9  And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

This is not talking about your earthly parent, this is talking about those who have charge over your spiritual life.
I have heard the argument made they called some “sons” therefore “father” is OK.
The bible doesn’t say call no man son.
I worship Jesus. The bible tells us we are not to make images of those we worship, worse than that Catholic church puts out images that are blatantly perverted.
I bet there is at least one picture on the wall of your church of a longhaired man that you call Jesus.
In fact I bet there are many such pictures in the Vatican City.
This is a most vile violation of the word of God. It is no more a picture of Jesus then it is a picture of my Great, Great, Great, Grandfather.
In fact it cannot possibly be Jesus. There is absolutely no possibility Jesus looked anything like that.
Jesus committed no sin. There was no shame found in Him. He never would have had long hair.

1 Corinthians 11:14  Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

To promote a picture of Jesus as a sinner is a great sin.
Catholics look to their church for understanding, believing the church is the one to divide the truth. The bible says YOU must be the workman rightly dividing the truth.

2 Timothy 2:15  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

There are many areas where Catholic teaching is in violation to the word of God. The bible warns about one that is unique, as far as I know,  to the Catholic church.

1 Timothy 4:1 ¶  Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1 Timothy 4:2  Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1 Timothy 4:3  Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

The Catholic Church forbids marriage--this is a fact. The priesthood cannot marry, not by choice, but by church doctrine.
In fact the bible teaches that those in charge of the Church must have been the husband of one wife, (not divorced). They must have raised obedient children. I know your argument concerning Paul. I don’t know of any proof he had never been married. His wife could have died, his child could have been grown.

1 Timothy 3:2  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1 Timothy 3:3  Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1 Timothy 3:4  One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1 Timothy 3:5  (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
 
One of the reasons the child abuse issue got out of hand is because those in charge had never raised a family.
Before you start thinking I am saying something I am not, let me make this very clear.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THE PRIESTS ABUSED CHILDREN BECAUSE THEY WERE UNMARRIED. There are plenty of married perverts. Those in charge did not deal with the issue in a responsible manner.
Shipping the pervert off to another part of the country to offend again was bad parenting.
The failure to deal with the problem responsibly goes all the way up to the Pope.

1 Samuel 3:13  For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not.
 
A responsible parent has an obligation to know what their child is doing, and to control their child.
When the bishops sent the offending priests off to another part of the country to abuse again they showed bad parenting. Certainly the cardinals were aware of the problem, if they weren’t then they should have been. This was happening in several districts, for many years. If this most awful abuse was not reported at least once all the way to the Pope then the family has a communication problem.
It is the parents responsibility to create lines of communication.
I could go on, about Mary and other issues, but this is enough.
I almost forgot, I did not say, “the catholic church fell away by the great schism”.  

Good, because I'm not into blaming games either.


I'm sure that there are many things that you dissagree with.. that's cool. I find the doctrine of infallibility essential to the church.
 

how can i trust what you say here? if you are not infallible then there is a chance that your assumtion here is wrong. I am wondering though if you correctly understand what infallibility is about,, at least what it means from a catholic perspective? it doesn't mean sinless or like jesus... it simply means that the pope and magesterium are protected from error when defining faith and morals.


again you are confusing infallibility with impeccability.. peter, and every pope after him were sinners... some very bad sinners. the concept of infallibility doesn't protect them from sinning or make them perfect.. it simply protects them under certain circumstances from erring and that is it.



actually there is evidence that peter was in rome. this is funny because there actually is no evidence that he did not go to rome. if it were a fable don't you think the early christians would have said so? some atheists claim that jesus never rose from the dead because the only people that say so were christians..... well that is because it is what they recieved from those before them. some say the bible is suspect because the church decided which books were true and which were not....

 
as i mentioned above, the historical evidence is imortant to what we believe today..... but here is a question for you.... what will you say when i tell you that what God revealed in my heart was that the catholic church with it's infallible leader was the truth? you cannot simply assign everyone in disagreement with you to putting faith in men...



1Cr 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet [have ye] not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

paul refers to himself as father..



the ark is an image...it even has other images on it....


while i agree that chances are jesus never looked like that, other chances are that he may have had long hair...  in jewish custom there was the vow of nazarite where those who took the vow were not allowed to cut their hair... samson had long hair yet the bible doesn't say that was his shame does it?


the catholic church doesn't promote jesus as a sinner.



i have no argument concerning paul...
i would like to point out that the catholic church does not forbid to marry... it has a sacrament called matrimony. that the priests in the roman rite are under a discipline to not marry is entirely different than a doctrine to not marry. that discipline is in place for practical reasons but could change.... who knows. regarless, the church doesn't teach not to marry.


i think the issue of pedophile priests is horrible and i also don't think it has anything to do with celibacy, i also think that there is a great need for reform in this matter,,,, but even if this issue goes all the way to the pope it still would not make the pope infallible, it would only show that he too is a sinner.



oh sorry. who did? it was on your post.

mike

Why?
Salvation is dependent on Gods work. He can use even those that are unsaved, and those that teach false doctrine to save. The tool God uses is the word. Any church or witness that quotes the bible can be used by God.

Romans 10:17  So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Romans 12:3  For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

The apostles were concerned about someone that was not following Christ, but was casting out devils. That’s language directed at bringing salvation.

Luke 9:49  And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
Luke 9:50  And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

God can use imperfect doctrine to bring salvation.
The bible tells us we will not have perfect understanding. We are fallible.

1 Corinthians 13:9  For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

Yes there is a chance my assumptions are wrong, wouldn’t be the first time.
My suggestion has always been don’t trust me, don’t trust the Pope, don’t trust any man. Trust the bible. I continually quote the bible, some may think too much, so you can look up what I say. Check it out.
I understand what Catholic infallibility is, problem is it fails. And it is unnecessary.
The Catholic Church has done a good job on some things like marriage being a life long commitment, and women are not to teach or have authority over men.
They have failed on other things, some we have mentioned here, others like purgatory can lead us on overwhelmingly long posts.
Catholic infallibility imprisons your church.
In some ways it is good because they stick to some good moral points. However because they cannot admit they could have made a mistake on doctrine they are forced to maintain doctrines that are not true. It is discouraged to even consider the possibility doctrinal error because then the Pope would no longer be infallible.
I can understand your point with Galatians 2:14.
I wasn’t confusing infallibility with impeccability I had failed to read the passage carefully.
What is this evidence? Your argument sounds like I would have to prove someone didn’t commit the crime. Guilty until proven innocent. Why would I have to prove he wasn’t at the scene?
2 Thessalonians 2:11  And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
He is not referring to himself as Father the one who has leadership. It is a metaphor. As in the originator. It would be more fitting of a missionary to be referred to as a father because they planted the seed.

1 Corinthians 3:6  I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

The church has used the term as one who has rule. Paul differentiates between the teachers, (pastors), and the fact that he brought the gospel to them.


The images were not things to be worshipped. They did not make an image of God.
Jesus was not a Nazarite, He was a Nazarene.
-----
From Easton’s Dictionary.

(Heb. form Nazirite), the name of such Israelites as took on them the vow prescribed in #Nu 6:2-21 The word denotes generally one who is separated from others and consecrated to God. Although there is no mention of any Nazarite before Samson, yet it is evident that they existed before the time of Moses. The vow of a Nazarite involved these three things,
1. abstinence from wine and strong drink,
2. refraining from cutting the hair off the head during the whole period of the continuance of the vow, and
3. the avoidance of contact with the dead.

When the period of the continuance of the vow came to an end, the Nazarite had to present himself at the door of the sanctuary with
1. a he lamb of the first year for a burnt-offering,
2. a ewe lamb of the first year for a sin-offering, and
3. a ram for a peace-offering.

After these sacrifices were offered by the priest, the Nazarite cut off his hair at the door and threw it into the fire under the peace-offering.
-----
While someone was performing the vow they would obviously be exempt from the command to cut their hair. If they were not a Nazarite and had long hair it was a shame to them. It was a sin. A Jesus with long hair would be a sinner.
Those in charge of the church must be the husband of one wife, AND must have raised obedient children. This is not talking about a sacrament, this is talking about having a family. Are you saying the church does not teach that their priesthood cannot marry?
If they change this doctrine, you are calling discipline, then it was flawed. Flawed doctrine cannot be tolerated. So it is unlikely to be changed, if it is I am sure they will put a spin on it, to sell it to the people.
It shows that because they followed a flawed doctrine that those running the Church cannot be married. They did not address the issue responsibly. Because those that operate the church are to be married with children the Pope IS NOT QUALIFIED to lead the church.

1 Timothy 3:2  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1 Timothy 3:3  Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1 Timothy 3:4  One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1 Timothy 3:5  (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

The word bishop means overseer.
From Strong’s
episcopes
1) an overseer
1a) a man charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly, any curator, guardian or superintendent
1b) the superintendent, elder, or overseer of a Christian church

Where?

John

"Why so Many?"

Matthew 7:13.  Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
 14.  Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

God can truly use any means he wants to lead us to salvation, and to truth. I don't see how infallibility is in conflict with this, especially if this gift is truly from Him.


again this concept is not in conflict with infallibility... if God can use imperfect doctrine I see no reason why having perfect doctrine could not be used. further I don't think that God would leave us without correct knowledge.


right. infallibility doesn't mean that the pope knows everything.... It really does mean that we know in part.



I believe it is. I believe that a correct understanding of what it is, it's very biblical roots, and how it has defined essential christian doctrine would in a very real way to end the constant splitting and dividing in the church. The topic of this thread is "why so many". the answer is at it's most practical is a lack of authority. by removing the pope we are left with no option but assuming that we are infallible in and of ourselves and thus the domino effect begins.. and it did begin right with the reformers themselves scquabbling over their new doctrines.


I can say from personal experience that this is not true. after spending about 15 years in evangelical/charismatic church I can honestly say i am experiencing freedom in christ for the first time as a catholic christian.  with all it's seeming rules and doctrines that seem so binding I am finally breathing deep that breath of God that was lacking in the protestant world.


i have found that catholicism deals with history... the good the bad and the ugly. though there have been bad popes I have yet to find anything that i would consider a mistake in doctrine. what is interesting is that while there seems to be a healthy criticism and historical outlook in catholicism, I find your charge would be better fit for the bible believing protestant. I have found more discouragement there questioning the bible than i have as a catholic questioning the infallibility.


what I am getting at is that there are written statements from the first century that make the claim that peter was at rome... what is lacking is someone from that time period challenging the claim.  some people question whether or not there was ever a custom of letting a prisoner free at  passover as claimed in the gospel, but no one living when the gospels were written seems to have claimed differently... ultimately your argument is one of silence but I believe that there is nothing silent about it.



how convenient. and yet it could actually be you under this delusion.. really though unless you were infallible it would not be wise to hack away with scriptures in this manner.



sorry but it shouldn't matter... he is in conflict with what christ says about calling no man father.



i wasn't making that claim only that people did have long hair in jewish culture and it was not a shame.. there is the chance that paul is speaking to the gentile culture in his comment about hair...

is this your definition or eastons?


priests in the roman rite are required to remain celebate. priests in easter rite churches are not under this discipline. a discipline is not a doctrine and so it can be changed... this discipline was in place for several reasons. one it was practical, and two Christ and paul speak of it in a beneficial way.




Where?

message 34

mike

Mike
Thank you for your reply.
Let me address your last point first.
I said:
This is not saying that the church had fallen away because of the Schism as you seem to have understood me.
I am saying they were off track before the great Schism.
Throughout their history they have had significant flaws in doctrine.

1. As early as at least the 3rd century the Church had taken the stand that if you were separated from the Church you were joined with an adultress. You couldn’t have God for your Father if you didn’t have the Church for your Mother. That is not biblical.

Luke 9:49  And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
Luke 9:50  And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

2. There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering. (St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter to all his People, AD 251, in Jurgens, 1970: 229).
This doctrine was established by a misunderstanding of Mat 16:18.
By the way the first “Pope”, Peter, was married.

3. In the 4th century the $$$ of the church began to be paraded. Gold and silver and color vestments, candles and incense, added to the pomp and pageantry of worship.
A much different church than the church of the apostles.

4. St. Ambrose (340-397) introduced the so called mysteries. Twisting the scripture to add magic to water.

“The water, then, is that in which the flesh is dipped, that all carnal sin may be washed away.”

John 1:7  But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

All our sins are washed clean.
This is also the problem with purgatory. A totally invented concept with no real scriptural support. Consuming fire in the bible always represents judgment, not purging.
I am not sure when purgatory became a Church doctrine but I bet it was before the Great Schism.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05121a.htm
The Donatist schism in Africa began in 311 and flourished just one hundred years, until the conference at Carthage in 411, after which its importance waned.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10521a.htm
Schismatics of the second century, first known as Phrygians, or "those among the Phrygians" (oi kata Phrygas), then as Montanists, Pepuzians, and (in the West) Cataphrygians. The sect was founded by a prophet, Montanus, and two prophetesses, Maximilla and Prisca, sometimes called Priscilla.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11138a.htm
Novatian was a schismatic of the third century, and founder of the sect of the Novatians; he was a Roman priest, and made himself antipope. His name is given as Novatus (Noouatos, Eusebius; Nauatos, Socrates) by Greek writers, and also in the verses of Damasus and Prudentius, on account of the metre.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01650a.htm
The adherents of a heresy which sprang up in the third century and spread through the western and southern parts of Asia Minor. What little we know of this obscure sect we owe to the writings of St. Epiphanius. He tells us that they called themselves Apotactics (i.e. renunciators) because they scrupulously renounced all private property; they also affected the name of Apostolics, because they pretended to follow the manner of life of the Apostles.

There are more.
Consider the antipopes.
Hippolytus (?), III century
Novatian, 251
Felix II, 355-365
Ursicinus, 366-367
Eulalius, 418-419
Laurentius, 498-501
Constantine II, 767
Philip, VIII century
Anastasius, 855
Leo VIII, 956-963
Boniface VII, 974
John XVI, X century
Gregory, 1012
Sylvester III, 1044
Benedict X, 1058
Honorius II, 1061-72
Guibert or Clement III, 1080-1100
Theodoric, 1100
Aleric, 1102
Maginulf, 1105
Burdin (Gregory VIII), 1118
Anacletus II,1130-38
Victor IV, 1159-64
Pascal III, 1164-68
Calixtus III, 1168-77
Innocent III, 1178-80
Nicholas V, 1328-30
Robert of Geneva (Clement VII), 20 September, 1378 to 16 September, 1394
Amadeus of Savoy (Felix V), November, 1439 to April, 1449

This is already getting long.
God does not promise an infallible church with infallible doctrine. That doctrine is not founded on scripture. It is in itself a flawed doctrine.
There is no need for an infallible church with infallible doctrine except for wielding power and control over others.
Concerning:

2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

It is not a hack at scripture. Charismatics believe that God speaks directly to them. I am not a Charismatic. This is part of the signs and wonders movement the bible warns about as we reach the end.
I rely on the scripture. That is where God speaks to us.
Dreams and visions, if they come from God, are by definition adding to the word of God.

Revelation 22:18  For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Revelation 22:21  The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

God seals the book. Up until the bible was finished there were visions and such, but no more. Satan can crossover, and he does cause visions. God allows it. For those people that need more than the bible God will allow them to be lead astray.
Paul calling himself father has a different intent than the definition of the RCC. The RCC has put a definition on the word that is not allowed by scripture.

Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Help me out here. How do you understand Matthew 23:9?

John

Mike
It was bothering me that I didn’t cover one of your statements.
There are churches that rejoined the RCC, their priests were married, and so ‘grand fathered in’ to the Church.
It is not practical, and the bible clearly says so.

1 Timothy 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

The proof that it was not practical was shown in how the church dealt with the issue of the child abuse. Those in charge did not have the practical training of running a family. So they did not respond to the issue in a responsible manner.
It is a requirement for those that operate the church to be married. Therefore it is God’s doctrine.
Your church wants to call it a discipline, Paul tells Timothy it is doctrine.
Because it is a requirement, those that are in the positions of Pope, Cardinal, Bishop, or Priest, (if they have not been married, with obedient children), are not qualified to be in their positions.

John

I believe the number of married Preists in the RCC is very low. Perhaps about 80 of them. For al practical purposes, the Vast majority of Roman Priest are celibate.



Now, that verse has some interesting pint, but a REQUIREMENT for Pastors to marry? I think you're reading far to much into the verse. I mean, do not forget, Paul  talked a lot about being unmarrried in 1 Corinthians chapter 7. Like when he said:


27- Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife.

32- I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs–how he can please the Lord.


So, did Paul changed him mind or something?

Anecdote this morning at staff briefing from our Principal (a nun):

Student:  You always seem to be going overseas.
Principal:  Well, my mother advised me to join the convent and see the world.
Student:  So was your mother a nun too?  

 :-X

Tibby
I am not sure what translation you are using. This is talking about someone who has been divorced.

1 Corinthians 7:27:  
Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.--KJV

Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife.--NASB

Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage.--RSV

Hast thou been bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed; hast thou been loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.--YLT

Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife.--ASV

alligatus es uxori noli quaerere solutionem solutus es ab uxore noli quaerere uxorem--Vulgate --- I can’t understand it, just thought it would be fun to add. :)

One of the things the Catholic church has done better than a great many other churches is recognize marriage is until death do you part.
This is my condition. My wife left about 8 years ago. I am still bound to her by Gods law. I cannot seek another.

1 Corinthians 7:39  The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

I would love to be able to date and remarry but I can’t I am bound by the law of God.
I am also not qualified to run a church, because one of the qualifications is to be married. Another qualification is to not be a novice. A man whose wife has died is able to work in the ministry.
This would have been Paul’s condition. His wife had probably died and now he was able to devote his full time to the work of the Lord.

1 Corinthians 7:32  But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:

There is no contradiction.

John

Cute. ;D

The frightening thing is, this isn't some innocent year 7 kid, this is a 16 year old year 10 student, educated in catholic schools.

What kind of catholic?

I am a Catholic :)

Brother Love :)

   <:)))><

Really? Then is must be your theology. You believe that one HAS to be married to be a minister, and yet Paul makes it clear that there is no problem with that.

Tibby
1 Cor7 is not talking about the ministry it is talking about marriage.
1 Timothy 3 is talking about the requirements for the ministry.
You are not required to be married as a person living on this earth.
However if you are in the ministry it is a requirement. Running the church is like running a family. Paul says you need the experience of running a family to operate the church.
There are 2 ways you can be “loosed” from a wife.
One is divorce, a divorced man cannot remarry. He is also not qualified to operate the church.
The second is through death. If your wife dies you can remarry. A widower is able to work in the church. In some situations such as Paul’s where extensive travel is required it would be better to find such men.
In other situations like sitting in Rome --- there is no reason not to be married.

Yes, like I said when I first posted about 1 cor 7. You are trying to add parts of the bible that are not there. 1 Timothy 3, it clearly referring to after they are married, not requiring Marrage.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the office of Pastor needs a wife to be complete. A women and a man are meant to join as one. However, I do not think it is a requirement. As you said yourself, Paul did not have a wife at the time of is travels. A pastor is to be a Sheperd, but that doesn't mean he has to have a literal flock of Sheep to know what it is like, does it?

Tibby

1 Tim says it is a requirement:

1 Timothy 3:2  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
 
1 Timothy 3:4  One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

He says it is a requirement, and indicates it is a requirement by giving the reason why.

1 Timothy 3:5  (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

I am not sure where you got the idea a pastor is the shepherd. Christ is the Shepherd.

John 10:11  I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

John 10:16  And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

I did not add anything to the bible. I would contend you have chosen to reject these verses of the bible.  :o
I am sure the Church has convinced you these verses are not laying down requirements. It is hard to change your perception. The church forbids marriage with their ministry.

1 Timothy 4:1  Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1 Timothy 4:2  Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1 Timothy 4:3  Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

right that is what i understood you to be saying and what i was disagreeing with.


could you provide reference for this please? not that i doubt you but I would like to see the context in which this is written.


that is all fine and dandy but there is a crucial difference between someone who is not againgst us and someone who is. most of the heresies were against orthodoxy not only in attitude but promoting an entirely different belief.


yes peter was married, it doesn't mean anything, celibacy is a discipline and not a formal doctrine. as to who is misunderstanding matt 16:18 i disagree with that as well. it makes perfect sense to me, not only in that such a thing promotes unity but that even the churches that disagree with catholicism still have the same system set up within their local little fellowship. a pastor and elders.


i just do not have a problem with this. it was in the 3rd and 4th centuries that the major persecutions ended and allowed the church to be more artistic. but again look at the church today in protestantism,,,, suits and ties, crystal cathedrals, mega churches, millenium cruises.... this too is a much different church than the apostles...


to me it is a mystery any way you look at it. ambrose isn't talking about magic at all he is merely pointing out that there is a reality to our faith that is not quite understood perfectly.... the trinity is a mystery even though it is defined it is still bigger than our definition.



except that the jews understood gehenna to mean a 12 month period of time after death of purgation. if it was invented it was invented before the christians.


again i must disagree... in my experience much more power was wielded over other in the protestant churches. without all the doctrines and dogmas and everything layed out straight there was much more room for manipulation. that is not to say that things are perfect in the catholic church.. as you pointed out there were schismatics before the reformers, and yet i have to point out that again it is our reliance on the teaching authority of the church that has kept us together for 2 thousand years. if there were no infallibility there would be no bible, and without both there would have been no defense against the schismatics you mentioned. even today we base our knowledge of cults upon what was offerd through tradition.



first i start a few verses back and then i end a few verses later. I don't think christ is really making a prohibition here, rather he is trying to point out a principal about those in religious authority.. thus it really doesn't matter if the word is teacher, father or master.. it could just as well be reverend, pastor or worship leader.... i have seen the arrogance in priest as well as pastor. i have also seen humility in both. but what i think this is really all about is jesus telling us what our leaders are really all about...and that is service..

Mat 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.  
 Mat 23:12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

it really is not about religious titles at all, rather it is about being humble..  the pharisees regarded their title and authority as above others... the concept surrounding the priesthood is service to others... and yet i know this is the ideal and that there are many priests that have probably been more like a pharisee...... that is between them and god though.

btw... thanks for the conversation so far... it is good to be able to discuss some of these things without having to deal with personal attacks......... but in the next few days my computer will be turned off for a huge cross country move... just letting you know in case i disappear.


mike

I have no answer. You make a good point. I'm going to have to look deeper into this.



Because of the word "pastor."

Christ's instructions to Peter seem to pretty much set him up as a shepherd too (John 21:15-17)

I thought all my points were good.  ;D
Yes, pastor is a word usually translated shepherd.

Ephesians 4:11  And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors <shepherds> and teachers;

I don't think God wants us to be lead around exactly like sheep, so it is not a requirement to have raised sheep.
If it had been He would have put that doctrine in the bible.
Perhaps a good way to view this is by comparing the Rock that is Christ, and the stones that are the believers, making up the eternal (heavenly) church.  

1 Corinthians 10:4  And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

1 Peter 2:5  Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Christ is the one true Rock, but the believers make up His eternal Church. Peter for instance was a believer and Jesus points out that His Church is made up of such stones.

Matthew 16:18  And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter , and upon this rock , I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

He is not signaling out Peter, rather He is pointing to Peter and saying His divine church is to be built upon believers like him. It is the eternal divine church that the gates of hell will not prevail against.
The earthly Church is built upon saved and unsaved man.
Because unsaved man is included in the church body we will always have schisms.

Some versions of the Bible use shepherd when speeking of overseers.

Take heed, therefore, to yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the assembly of the Lord and God which he purchased with his own blood. (Act 20:28 WEB)

"Therefore, continue being on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit placed you* [as] overseers, to be shepherding [or, pastoring] the Assembly of the Lord and God, which He acquired through His own blood. (Act 20:28 ALT)


I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and who will also share in the glory that will be revealed. Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not under compulsion, but voluntarily, not for dishonest gain, but willingly; neither as lording it over those entrusted to you, but making yourselves examples to the flock. When the chief Shepherd is revealed, you will receive the crown of glory that doesn't fade away. (1Pe 5:1-4 WEB)


often translated as feed in other versions...

Feed the flock of God among you, taking the oversight, not by compulsion, but willingly; nor for base gain, but readily; (1Pe 5:2 MKJV)

Hi, Mike.
I hope your move was without incident.
I often disappear for periods of time, it’s the nature of my job.
http://www.mcauley.acu.edu.au/~yuri/ecc/mod2.html
The Bride of Christ cannot be defiled. She is inviolate and chaste... Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adultress is separated from the promises of the Church; nor will he that forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is an alien, a worldling, and an enemy. He cannot have God for his Father who does not have the Church for his Mother... Does anyone believe that in the Church this unity which proceeds from the divine stability and which is welded together after the heavenly patterns can be divided, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? Whoever holds not fast to this unity holds not to the law of God; neither does he keep faith with the Father and the Son, nor does he have life and salvation. (St. Cyprian of Carthage, The Unity of the Catholic Church, [AD 251/256], in: Jurgens, 1970: 221).
In the Christian world there are essentially only 2 different paths.
One path says you must do something to get yourself saved. By some act of yours you can guarantee your eternal life. There are a lot of divisions on this path because the work required varies. Some examples of works.
You must accept Jesus.
You must be baptized by sprinkling.
You must be baptized by dunking.
You must speak in tongues.
You must be a member of a particular denomination.
You must confess your sins.
You must worship on ______day.
You must not eat certain foods.
You must be circumcised.
You must  ___________.
The other path is the one I believe in.
You can do nothing to guarantee your salvation.
God does all the work. Salvation is a rescue. The word is a tool that God uses to save those that He intends to save.
Anyone that goes into the world and spreads the gospel can bring salvation to someone else. It is the word and Gods action on the word that saves.
I believe that if someone was washed ashore on a deserted Island, and a page of the bible washed up with them. God could use this small piece of scripture to save them.

Romans 10:17  So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Jesus was talking about those people that did not understand the gospel, but they were still spreading the word. God can use their preaching to save.
I believe that more are saved by a faithful witness, but God can use any bible believing messenger to save.


I think I have covered this well enough, the bible says it is a doctrine to be married.


Matthew 16:18  And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock, I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

When looking at this verse Catholics think that Christ is saying Peter is the Rock that the church is being built upon. That would not follow through with the rest of the bible.
A building only has one cornerstone. This would make Peter the cornerstone.

1 Peter 2:6  Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

Jesus is the cornerstone.
Jesus gave Simon the name Peter to use him as ‘a type’ for believer.

John 1:42  And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

All believers are stones.

1 Peter 2:5  Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

It is the believers that make up the eternal church of God, a spiritual house. The gates of hell cannot prevail against this church.

Ephesians 2:19  Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
Ephesians 2:20  And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Ephesians 2:21  In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
Ephesians 2:22  In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

The bible says that the temple, (the earthly church), WILL be overcome by Satan. The Church, (the heavenly Church) Jesus is talking about in Matthew 16:18 will not be overcome by Satan.

2 Thessalonians 2:4  Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

2 Timothy 4:3  For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2 Timothy 4:4  And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

The parading of wealth in the church is not limited to Catholics.
What better sign that it is not a church founded with God than this love of wealth.

Matthew 6:24  No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Churches shouldn’t need security systems, they have God.
The Catholic church has done a very good job in giving aid to those in need. They have evangelized the world. They have done a lot of good and charitable works. But they have withheld some for their own glory.

Acts 5:3  But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

The money churches gather should be used to spread the gospel, and to care for the congregation. I know of nothing, in the bible, that says the churches are to have such elaborate ceremonies. In the OT there was some pomp but this was done as a ‘picture’ of the glory of God.
The Jews did not understand that the messiah was to die to purge us of our sins. They cannot accept that the blood of Jesus washes us clean.
We have the bible because God protected it, not the church. I trust God.
The Catholic Church does not follow the gospel in many ways as I have mentioned.
One of the basis of a cult is that the leader is infallible. The leader has special information from God. The leader is a person
In the true church the Leader is Christ.
The true gospel is established and held by the bible and the bible alone, nothing more and nothing less.

2,000 years.

We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with Government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men.
—Charles H. Spurgeon
http://www.reformedreader.org/history/list.htm
 
If you are still interested in conversation after all the work of your move I’ll pay attention.
John

Satan! He divides, accuses, destroys. He works through men/women.  

LOOK OUT!!!!
It was a comment like that that got me in trouble.

That kind of thinking will get you into lots of long and detailed replies.

I thought my original post was pretty short.
My Mothers nickname was Ollie. I like it.