Why are there so many Denominations?!?!

You say you are pretty sure.... The reality of the matter is you don't know what you are talking about. It was not until recently that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon) called themselves Christian. It can easily be shown that they are not biblical Christians.

Do some real study before you make such statements.

Bro Tony </font>[/QUOTE]You know, Tony, I read this and all I could think of was how condescending it was to put this man down in such a way. I have done some study, and can not necessarily agree with all you have to say about this particular matter. I have some Mormon friends in my circles, and I just can't feel the same way about them as you do.

I mean, if we are going to be honest with ourselves, I think we need to not play the semantics game, and have different definitions for Jesus and the word Christian. Christian is belief in Christ, and the Catholics and Mormons both claim this belief. By strict dictionary defintion, it is as they say, they are Christian.

Your argument, is similar to someone taking some cultural exception over the ethnicity of a certain group of people, or person, because they are different. Like the differences black people used to have when one of their own tried to be white, and they called that person an "Uncle Tom."

Is not this argument about Catholics and Mormons the "Uncle Tom" equivalent, because they are fundamentally different, and therefore a different culture, yet we abbreviate that word culture and call it cult?

Anyway, I think its unfair and beneath the true Christian to resort to such name calling and semantics, even a form of persecution. We need more tolerance, and less self-righteousness. That's what Jesus would do, I believe. I mean, Jesus did not judge the adultress, his nature was to love everyone. He never made fun of anyone, and he never persecuted anyone for their belief. Let's be careful here.

 

Rockyman, whether or not your Mormon friends are 'nice people' or indeed 'your friends' is irrelevant. The LDS Jesus is NOT the Jesus of Scripture. The LDS Church is PAGAN.

 

Those are strong sentiments, and I know you believe them as fact, but lets be fair here. I think contrary to what you say that these people being my friends is "irrelevant," it is relevant indeed. When we socialize with our friends, and I am speaking in general, they see who and what we are. They see our disposition, our countenance. They can sense a holier than thou attitude, and they can certainly sense disdain. But they can also sense mutual respect, charity, and the kinds of things that make up a true Christian. I think it all matters very much.

How can we have any influence with people to whom we have such great disdain and disrespect for what they believe, for what their lives are all about? There are better ways, and if we are saying the Mormons are not worth it, then what are we saying here? Do we care for all people, or not? What would Jesus do?

I have Mormon friends, and not once have I seen pictures of PAGAN gods on their walls, but I have seen pictures of Jesus, the same (or similar) ones that I see in my church, you know, the man with the long brown hair, with a robe, etc. It sure seems like they are closer to believing in the historical Jesus of who we believe than they are to the PAGAN gods of say, Zeus or Apollo, etc. I mean, these are faithful sincere, moral people, who believe and act on the biblical teachings of Jesus in most every way. They are not PAGANS! Pagans have no morals. It is different. Wiccans, for instance, are Pagans, believe in the myriad of Gods with individual names, and they have no morals: "An Ye harm none. Do what ye will." That's a Pagan. The teachings of Jesus? Forget it! There IS a big difference here.

OK, this is not a Mormon discussion here. But I think that general disdain of another's faith goes NOWHERE to advance the cause of Jesus Christ, and it doesn't mirror what Jesus did or how he treated people, from MY reading of the Bible. The only time that I can recall in the Bible where Jesus took it out one someone, was in the temple, when he cleared it from the money-changers who made the House of God a den of thieves. I personally believe He was making his opening statement for His ministry, that HE was in charge, for after that, it was a very passive mininistry, with gentleness and charity and long-suffering for all. Even his enemies, who He said "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." And so we have our example. There are better and nicer more sincere ways to reach all of God's children.

[ July 27, 2004, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: rockyman ]

 

I am sure there is more than one reason for so many Christian denominations. But probably somewhere at the top of the list is carnality and a mis-handling of God's Word.

 

Keith
"Here are some more people that disagree with you mioque. "
''
All people whose work you've never read and who you strongly disagree with when it comes to most other aspects of christian theology.

"the overwhelming wieght of historical testimony,"
''
The only historical testimony you have provided up to now is evidence that Roman Catholicism was extremely unpopular among the competition.

And most of those pre-reformation era quotes you posted are highly suspect, as in either made up, or ripped out of context so much that they lost all of their original meaning.
And before you start yelling for evidence, the last SDA that made me dig up evidence to prove that a questionable quote was made up from whole cloth claimed he never believed the quote in the first place the moment after I posted evidence that proved the quote was made up that took me over a week to gather.
So no I'm not going to chase down suspect quotes you can simply copy and past of some SDA website.
The scholastic standards in the SDA church are so low that together with the Mormons, the Landmarkists, the KJVO's and the Jehovah's Witnesses they are responsible for the distrust my American colleagues are sometimes perceived with abroad.

"Those who gave this testimony were not ignorant, and uneducated men, as you suggest."
''
I spoke about some among the first lot you quoted and not about the folks in your last post.

"you will have to do more than just tell me that you have a doctorate in church-history"
''
And rightly so, have something in mind that doesn't mean I have to spend the next fortnight digging up data in half a dozen universitylibraries that you will simply ignore the moment I post it?

 

Why are there so many denominations? Money and Power. The "church" today is like the corporations of today.

 

Most denominations aren't exactly rich. Most denoms, like most churches, are stretched thin on resources.

 

The goal is still power and money in many denominations.

 

"Most denominations aren't exactly rich."
''
And even the rich ones often have most of their their wealth in the form of art and buildings that require expensive upkeep instead of earning the denomination in question more money.
The Russian-Orthodox Church is disgustingly rich if one counts the value of all the real estate, icons and liturgical clothing it owns. If they tried to sell all of their icons (or buildings, or vestments) the market would collapse and that priceless art would turn out to be less than priceless. Great wealth on paper, a lot less in practice.

 

It is the leaders of the denominations that get the money and power.

 

Again, most denominational leaders aren't exactly rich. Most of them, like most church pastors, leaders and staff, are stretched thin on resources, working part time and getting little in financial recompense.

 

Because man is bent on being led by his own desires and by fables!

 

I have a question, and this is going to seem REALLY stupid, but why exactly do some of you not believe Catholic is Christian?

 

Hmm, let's see. I think I have a can of worms sitting around here somewhere

J4KC35, I'm going to be a bit general here, so as not to turn this thread into a RCC rant. Better left for another thread. Generally, there are some who feel that the differences in between RCC doctrines and mainline Protestant/Evangelical doctrines are sufficient to question the salvation of a person who is a Catholic. Others feel that the RCC teaches salvation by works, instead of salvation by grace, and with such belief, don't believe that a Catholic who adheres to such is saved. Others, however, generally accept that, if you've accepted Christ as Savior and Lord, repented of your sins, and accepted the grace of Christ's gift of salvation, then you're saved, regardless of your religious affiliation.

Aside from that, I think that's 'nuff said on the topic.

 

Mioque, how could you possibly know what I have read, and what I have not read? As a matter of fact, I have read some of the writings of many of the people which I have quoted, though certainly not all. I have, I do, and I intend to continue studying church history. As stated above, I have the writings of many of those from whom I quoted. The list would include, John Calvin, John Knox, Martin Luther, William Tyndale, d’Augbine,J.H. Merle, J.A. Wylie, George Faber, Peter Allix, A.T. Jones, Grattan H. Guiness, and Uriah Smith.

You are quite right about the Church of Rome being extremely unpopular with those she was in competition with. In fact the MOH would have gladly killed many of those whom I quoted from. As she did countless others who pointed out her real identity.

I am not the last SDA that you debated with. I would be glad to know if something I quoted was made up. I would learn something from the experience, and would certainly never use the quote again. Does saying that you have a doctorate in church history mean that you don’t have to prove anything you say? You say my quotes are made up, or ripped out of context. I say, if you think that everyone should just take your word for it, then you think way to highly of yourself.

If, you do have a doctorate in church history, this does not make your word infallible. More-over, it seems that you would be presenting more hard facts from history, rather than just expecting me to believe you, just because you say so. Nevertheless, I am not your judge, God is. On the other hand, neither am I so ignorant, or lazy, that I could not check out your historical claims for myself. Perhaps mioque, you could teach me something, rather than just spouting off your own words, and expecting me to believe you as the sole authority on the subject at hand.

As for your judgments against me, and the SDA church in general, everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinion. God will work out all the details in the end. Be careful though mioque. It is right for you, and I, and everyone to search for the truth. Along the way they will certainly have to make judgments concerning what is, and what is not the truth. This is only right. However, it is not for you, or me, or any other, to judge the motives of another’s heart. This would be best left to God, who alone is the righteous judge of all.

Matt 7:1-2 1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.


Heb 4:12-16 12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.


John 14:6 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith

 

Why are there so many Denominations?

The scriptural answer is "For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." 1 Cor. 11:19. For example, Luther would not compromise a single point of doctrine in order to restore the unity of the Reformation movement. The Word creates the unity of Christian fellowship.

 

Luther's 'sola fide' was a 'new' doctrine, which had not been on the scene for the entire 1500 years of Church history. 1 Cor.11's warnings apply to him...

 

"Mioque, how could you possibly know what I have read, and what I have not read?"
''
I'm a good guesser. Generally speaking anybody whose main line of argumentation is a semi-relevant list of pregathered quotes from a website is not a person who actually read the works quoted.

"Uriah Smith"
''
You typed earlier about me denouncing some of your sources as fools.
You can put Uriah on top of that list, unless I've missed a reference of yours to Alexander Hislop in that case Uriah takes second place after him.

 

Luther's 'sola fide' was a 'new' doctrine, which had not been on the scene for the entire 1500 years of Church history. 1 Cor.11's warnings apply to him... </font>[/QUOTE]Sola Fide is what the Church Catholic has always believed, taught, and confessed. Justification by works is a 'new' doctrine of the Anti-Christ (i.e., the Papacy).

"Similarly we also, who by His will have been called in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, or our own wisdom or understanding or godliness, nor by such deeds as we have done in holiness of heart, but by that faith through which Almighty God has justified all men since the beginning of time. Glory be to Him, forever and ever, Amen." - St. Clement of Rome (Letter to the Corinthians, par. 32)

"Human beings can be saved from the ancient serpent in no other way than by believing in him who, when he was raised up from the earth on the tree of martyrdom in the likeness of sinful flesh, drew all things to himself and gave life to the dead." - Irenaeus (Against the Heresies, IV, 2, 7).

"Indeed, this is the perfect and complete glorification of God, when one does not exult in his own righteousness, but recognizing oneself as lacking true righteousness to be justified by faith alone in Christ." - St. Basil the Great (Homily on Humility, PG 31.532; TFoTC vol. 9, p. 479)

"They said that he who adhered to faith alone was cursed; but he, Paul, shows that he who adhered to faith alone is blessed." - St. John Chrysostom (First Corinthians, Homily 20, PG 61.164)

"For you believe the faith; why then do you add other things, as if faith were not sufficient to justify? You make yourselves captive, and you subject yourself to the law." - St. John Chrysostom (Epistle to Titus, Homily 3, PG 62.651)

"To declare His righteousness." What is declaring of righteousness? Like the declaring of His riches, not only for Him to be rich Himself, but also to make others rich, or of life, not only that He is Himself living, but also that He makes the dead to live; and of His power, not only that He is Himself powerful, but also that He makes the feeble powerful. So also is the declaring of His righteousness not only that He is Himself righteous, but that He doth also make them that are filled with the putrefying sores (katasapentaj) of sin suddenly righteous. And it is to explain this, viz. what is "declaring," that he has added, "That He might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." Doubt not then: for it is not of works, but of faith: and shun not the righteousness of God, for it is a blessing in two ways; because it is easy, and also open to all men. And be not abashed and shamefaced. For if He Himself openly declareth (endeiknutai) Himself to do so, and He, so to say, findeth a delight and a pride therein, how comest thou to be dejected and to hide thy face at what thy Master glorieth in? - St. John Chrysostom (Homilies on Romans 3)

[ July 29, 2004, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

Johnv,

I think it is safe to say that most religious leaders' income comes from the tithes & offerings. Is that how Paul made his earnings? No, he was a tentmaker. Perhaps today's religious leaders believe they are supposed to be solely supported from tithes and offerings.