Why are there so many Denominations?!?!

Perhaps it was they who twisted the meaning of the text, by assuming it was the same as God's authority to forgive sins, because of their increasing doctrinal corruption and lust for power (See 2 Tim.4:4, 2 Peter 2:2, 3, 3 John 9, 10). But "forgiveness" has different levels. God forgives sinners, of their sin, passing them from death to life. And we forgive individual offenses against us, as we are instructed. Same word used. Nowhere does he say that "I grant this to all priests" (And where do we even see priests? Right there, the office is unbiblical, and yet it tries to usurp this authority Christ gave to his directly chosen apostles, and from there assume the power to bring or refuse people to Heaven).

 

Yup, "lust for power", that's it all right! ????
That's absolutely absurd. The Church(es)you so despise gave you the Bible you hold in your hand (missing 7 books, of course), and the doctrines you hold dear. "Usurp" is absurd as well. When the Apostles died, others were ordained to take their place. Eventually, as the Church grew in number, and one man could not possibly 'minister' to all the people, priests/presbyters were ordained to fulfill some of the Bishops functions.
Finally, regarding "...assume the power to bring or refuse people to Heaven," the Church has DISCIPLINE. People who are living in blatant sin or holding/teaching false doctrine must be removed from the Body...for the good of the Body, and also, for the one 'removed', that he might repent and be saved. This "power" is used, in one way or another, by all churches, not just those 'evil' Catholic ones...

 

Yes, lust for power. We see it starting right there in the epistles, as warned by Paul and John. (also warned about by Jesus —Matt. 7:15, 24:5) What is so hard to believe about that?

They apparently didn't "give us the Bible", but rather GOD, used them in spite of themselves, to preserve the canon. Else, we would see other books in there, which support their unbiblical tachings, and probably more than just those 7 (which were questioned even by the Jewish canon). The fact that stuff like the Gospel of Mary was not included is a great proof we have that God gave us the Bible, not these man.

A presbyter is an elder; which was ordained as an office in the New Testament (along with "bishop"--overseer). It is not some office that "eventually developed" later on. If it was, then it would be an unscriptural addition (as is the renaming of it to "priest", done for convenience, and that is what drove much of the changes of the Church-- convenience (e.g. Ignatius elevating the position of bishop in the face of persecuation)

Yes, all churches have discipline, but that is not the same as a church leader having power to forgive a person's sins. Now, if you interpret that verse to mean "forgive or not forgive when it comes to whether the person should be disciplined", then fine; that is an acceptable readng of it. But not to forgive or not forgive like "God alone" can (which determines heaven or hell), and Jesus acknowledged.

 

Jude, the tenses of verbs in that forgiveness passage clearly teach tht the forgiveness of men has already been granted by God. "If you forgive men's sins, they have already been forgiven by God." It references man's ability to declare the message of God's forgiveness. One of the few things that the Pharisees were right about was in Mark 2, that God alone could forgive sin. Jesus acknowledged that truth and then proved his diety by raising the man to show his power to forgive sins.

The idea that man can forgive sin is not found in Scripture. It is one of the many places that the RCC long ago departed from Scripture. There is only one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. About two weeks ago, I had a conversation with a Catholic man (of 62 years, complete with daily mass as a child and teen), and we talked about this very question. When I quoted the verse about Christ's role as sole mediator, you should have seen the look on his face. He was amazed that he had never been taught that truth. He still struggles to understand why his works don't gain him acceptance with God but I am praying that he will saved and come to a knowledge of the truth in Christ alone.

 

Mioque

I am still looking into the matter. For sure, there are two different views. Both sides of the issue, accuse the other of false historical claims. I stumbled upon something called the Waldenses confession of faith of 1120. Haven’t had much time to check it out though. Have you ever heard of it? If it does exist, and is authentic, it would be a problem for those who think Peter Waldo was the founder of the Waldenses. In any case, I will continue to look into the matter. Bye for now.

Y. b. in C. Keith.

 

Obviously this 'Catholic man' doesn't read his own Catholic Catechism. (Again, I'm not RC). Nowhere in that Catechism does it say that Christ is not the sole mediator. And 'works' need to be defined. Works done out of grace, says James, complete our faith. They are necessary for salvation.

 

The issue of forgiveness through priests is misunderstood by MOST Protestants, and is clearly the case here. You can twist the plain meaning of Scripture here if you want to, but clearly Christ conferred that power/authority to His Apostles. Also, wouldn't we all say that God alone heals? Then why is their a 'gift of healing'? Why were people healed in the Book of Acts through the presence of the Apostles? Did the Apostles HEAL them? No, but God did through them.

 

1456 Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of Penance: "All mortal sins of which penitents after a diligent self-examination are conscious must be recounted by them in confession, even if they are most secret and have been committed against the last two precepts of the Decalogue; for these sins sometimes wound the soul more grievously and are more dangerous than those which are committed openly."[54]

When Christ's faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness for remission through the mediation of the priest, "for if the sick person is too ashamed to show his wound to the doctor, the medicine cannot heal what it does not know."[55]

1457 According to the Church's command, "after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year."[56] Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession.[57] Children must go to the sacrament of Penance before receiving Holy Communion for the first time.[58]

1493 One who desires to obtain reconciliation with God and with the Church, must confess to a priest all the unconfessed grave sins he remembers after having carefully examined his conscience. The confession of venial faults, without being necessary in itself, is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church.

If Christ is our only mediator, why "must" one confess sins to a priest? The priest is the addition of a mediator between God and man. That is unbiblical. The Bible teaches that we do not need to confess sins to a priest to receive forgiveness from God.

James does not say that at all. James is talking about the kind of faith taht saves, not whether works contribute. The kind of faith that saves is one that issues in obedience. In other words, you can know if someone's faith is saving faith by seeing their life of obedience. Those works do not contribute to salvation; they are the evidence of salvation. Lack of study of James has led to some great misunderstandings.

As for your last post, Christ never conferred the authority to forgive sins to man. That is a misreading of the passage.

 

"I stumbled upon something called the Waldenses confession of faith of 1120. Haven’t had much time to check it out though. Have you ever heard of it?"
''
No. I most certainly would like to know what the official title of that confession is.

"If it does exist, and is authentic, it would be a problem for those who think Peter Waldo was the founder of the Waldenses"
"'
Yes absolutely!

 

James2.14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
No mention here of "kind" of faith at all.
He goes on to say...

James2.22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

...that his faith was 'made perfect' (complete)by his works.

 

That's right. To be made complete is to reach its goal. What is the goal of saving faith??? Eph 2:10 tells us it is good works. True saving faith has as its goal obedience to God. The obedience is not a part of the salvation, it is the evidence of salvation.

BTW, in James 2:14, there is an article. The NASB, NIV, or ESV have the correct translation.

NAU James 2:14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?

NIV James 2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?

ESV James 2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

The question is, "Can the kind of faith that produces no works be true saving faith?" The answer is "No." That kind of faith is "in vain," or "useless."

 

Actually, only the KJV and the NKJV have it right here, literally, 'can THE faith save him'?

 

Jude, you need some work in Greek and English. In Greek, the article in that situation is used as a demonstration. The question is about a particular kind of faith.

In English, neither the KJV nor the NKJV have "the." They both omit the article.

I would agree with "the" ... It means, Can the faith described in the previous sentence save? The answer is no. It is not saving faith. You know saving faith by the fruit that it puts forth.

 

I have decided to start my own denomination...

Because I am right and the rest of you are wrong...

And, to prove it I have 100 people and we are moving three blocks up the street an start our own church which will be the "No Purple Carpets, Baptismal Pool Only, Jesus is Alive" denomination...

 

If you can do that, then what's wrong with the Mormons? and doesn't all of this talk of denominations and the disagreements in doctrines show that there is not a unity in the faith, really? Love maybe, but unity in doctrine, I sure don't see it. I see a case for diversity and tolerance. I see the Christian moniker growing and growing.

 

I've been following this "many denominations" thread for a while, and curiously wondering what everyone here actually thought about the various strong differences in opinion or interpretations, and it seems pretty clear that people are all over the map.

How come? Is this important?

 

It is not important. Most of the things we feel so strongly about don't really matter and we're all wrong about something anyway, and will only know the full truth when we get to heaven. Therefore we should all be a little more tolerant of the weird things our brothers and sisters believe, because we just might find out they were really right all along when we get there.

Scripturally, we need to hold fast to the doctrine of Christ and Who He is . . that's the only thing that matters in the end.

 

Paul of Eugene

AGREED!

That was the *whole* point of my last post.

Rockyman... You are way too serious man.

 

Actually, God wants unity, and according to Scripture, all who leave the original group do so to their own destruction.... that's pretty strong words for not wanting One Faith....

Acts 20:29-30
For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.


How do we know who is speaking perverse things? How do we know who is interpreting Scripture properly?

Christ tells us in John's Gospel that the Spirit of Truth will guide the Church.

John 14:16-17, 26
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
[Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.


If the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church, as Jesus promised, then we must find that Church... because Truth cannot contradict Truth, and to have more than one faith means that there is a contradiction.

God Bless,
Sirach

 

Indeed, while in a secular college, I had a friend who was a history major. IMO the historical community out does that of the religionists and politicians for their rancor.

HankD