Does God care which denomination I belong to?

[tragic_pizza]

DHK,

bmerr here. What is often promoted as "unity" is actually only "union". It comes escorted by phrases like, "Agree to disagree", and "Unity in diversity", which are oxymorons, I believe.

True Christian unity can only be achieved on the basis of God's word (John 17:20-21). We've got to get the traditions and doctrines of man out of the way if we ever want to see unity.

It's a worthy goal to work toward.

In Christ,

bmerr

"Unity in diversity" is most decidedly not an oxymoron.

Wha never fails to fascinate me is how people will say " [t]rue Christian unity can only be achieved on the basis of God's word..." then insit the interpretation of that Word be according to their understanding thereof.

Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, and even Catholics are what they are because of the way they've interpreted God's word.

Thus diversity recognizes that (and this may come as a shock) we are different.

Unity recognizes that these differences are not central. Christ is central.

 

[BobRyan]

Divergence among Christian groups is tied primarily to the errors infused into Christianity in the dark ages by the master minds of the dark ages - the RCC leadership.

But be that as it may - they were right for their willingless to suffer and die for truths that the RCC was trying to cover up.

 

[DHK]

"Unity in diversity" is most decidedly not an oxymoron.

Wha never fails to fascinate me is how people will say " [t]rue Christian unity can only be achieved on the basis of God's word..." then insit the interpretation of that Word be according to their understanding thereof.

Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, and even Catholics are what they are because of the way they've interpreted God's word.

They are what they are because of sin and a rejection of God's Word, not a different interpretation of God's Word. The Catholic's "interpretation" of God's Word has nothing to do with what they believe. Their doctrine was invented as history rolled along. What did a zealous Catholic such a "Blood Mary" Queen of England, who sought to exterminate all who were not Catholics have to do with the interpretation of the Bible. Nothing! History is replete with such ignorant persecution. Doctrine has nothing to do with it; sin has everything to do with it. It comes down to a rejection of the Word of God upon the authority of man. Man is exalted over God. Many religions work on that basis. Whenever salvation is by works it is man that is exalted and not God.
DHK

 

[tragic_pizza]

They are what they are because of sin and a rejection of God's Word, not a different interpretation of God's Word. The Catholic's "interpretation" of God's Word has nothing to do with what they believe. Their doctrine was invented as history rolled along. What did a zealous Catholic such a "Blood Mary" Queen of England, who sought to exterminate all who were not Catholics have to do with the interpretation of the Bible. Nothing! History is replete with such ignorant persecution. Doctrine has nothing to do with it; sin has everything to do with it. It comes down to a rejection of the Word of God upon the authority of man. Man is exalted over God. Many religions work on that basis. Whenever salvation is by works it is man that is exalted and not God.
DHK

OK, what about the Protestant kings, queens, and provincial rulers who burned Catholics at the stake? These were interpreting the Bible correctly?

"They are what they are because..." is a very broad-brush approach. You do not know what has made me Presbyterian, nor do you know what makes others whatever denomination they are. You are guessing, unless you get faxed updates from the Throne.

My point stands.

 

[DHK]

OK, what about the Protestant kings, queens, and provincial rulers who burned Catholics at the stake? These were interpreting the Bible correctly?

"They are what they are because..." is a very broad-brush approach. You do not know what has made me Presbyterian, nor do you know what makes others whatever denomination they are. You are guessing, unless you get faxed updates from the Throne.

My point stands.

Your point doesn't stand at all.
You will never find one instance of a Baptist burning anyone. They were the ones historically burned at the stake. They were the only ones that consistently fought for soul liberty--the right for freedom of religion, and tolerance to believe what they believed God would have them believe.
What groups are you referring to?
The Anglicans? The came out of the Catholic Church and there wasn't much difference between them and the RCC except that they didn't acknowledge the Pope. Both the RCC and the Church of England persecuted those who were not of their persuasion.
John Calvin also set up a state church in Geneva. He was known to persecute those who did not believe with his doctrinal stance. That is the problem with a state church. Any time a man sets up a state church he runs into problems. Constantine did the same thing back in the beginning of the fourth century at beginning of the Catholic Church. There was a great persecution then of the true believers in Christ. Always has been.
DHK

 

[tragic_pizza]

Your point doesn't stand at all.
You will never find one instance of a Baptist burning anyone. They were the ones historically burned at the stake.

Burning anyone? No. Killing others in a war, yes. Anabaptists were separatists, and some grups were militantly separatist. It's history.

They were the only ones that consistently fought for soul liberty--the right for freedom of religion, and tolerance to believe what they believed God would have them believe.

To the exclusion of all others. As such, the Anabaptists werre no better or worse than other Protestant groups.

What groups are you referring to?
The Anglicans? The came out of the Catholic Church and there wasn't much difference between them and the RCC except that they didn't acknowledge the Pope. Both the RCC and the Church of England persecuted those who were not of their persuasion.

I can't address this, since I am not Anglican and not well-versed enough in their history.

John Calvin also set up a state church in Geneva. He was known to persecute those who did not believe with his doctrinal stance. That is the problem with a state church. Any time a man sets up a state church he runs into problems. Constantine did the same thing back in the beginning of the fourth century at beginning of the Catholic Church. There was a great persecution then of the true believers in Christ. Always has been.

Historically speaking, this is a fascinating out-of-its-context interpretation. I will try to address the points individually.

First, yes, John Calvin envisioned Geneva as a place which could serve as an example of Christian government. There was, at the time, no other paradigm for Christianity than that of a state church. Good or bad is irrelevant in this context, as it insists we apply 21st-century mores to a sixteenth-century event.

As far as Constantine "beginning " the Catholic Church, you are apparently unaware that the episcopal polity of the church, as well as its rough outlines, were already in place by the beginning of the fourth century. We can agree that legalizing Christianity was a disservice to the faith, we will continue to disagree that Constantine "created" the Catholic Church.

Finally, as to Calvin, Luther, and others participating in the burning of heretics, we can agree that from our twenty-first century understanding of Scripture, this is repugnant. Again, though, we cannot insist that Christians who lived five centuries ago address situations in ways outside their understanding and experience. Burning was, sadly enough, what one did to heretics. It isn't, cannot be, a right-or-wrong argument except in that it instructs us not to do the same.

 

[DHK]

Burning anyone? No. Killing others in a war, yes. Anabaptists were separatists, and some grups were militantly separatist. It's history.

They were separatists, and most were pacificists. Check your history. No one of the Anabaptists group went persecuting other religious groups. That is history. What are you reading? Revisionist Catholic sources perhaps?

 

[tragic_pizza]

They were separatists, and most were pacificists. Check your history. No one of the Anabaptists group went persecuting other religious groups. That is history. What are you reading? Revisionist Catholic sources perhaps?

"A History of the Christian Church" by Wiliston Walker. And, to be sure, I refer to only one group of Anabaptists in particular.

So... we stand at reat on the balance of my post?

 

[Jack Lavictoire]

But will there only be Baptists in heaven? I do not think so :flower:

In my opinion, denominations are for narrow minded people. Why would I say something like that??? Because you focus on a few doctrines and build denominations around them. However, in the scriptures we are called Christians, and we are told to be of one mind... In all things!

As it is, men have build walls in the name of Christ... Calling them denominations. But praise and glory to God because He knows His own.

If God was to speak on this subject I imagine that He would say, "Come out of her my people".

As it is, we who don't belong to the baptists denomination aren't even allowed to post in many of the areas of this forum! Yet many of us belong to Christ. Like you we have been born of God... Washed in His blood... Given eternal life and have heard His voice.

So go ahead, build your walls... The day is soon coming when all who turn us away will have to give account! For we have all been called into one body, and we are to bare one name - Christians!


Matthew 7:21-23
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

If you knew Him you wouldn't be building walls... For you would realize that you belong to one body. But hey, go ahead, build your walls... God will surely brake them down!

Peace to God's elect... Those who have been called... Who have been loved by Christ. You will never perish... You have crossed from death to life, and you will know the true meaning of life, and I assure you that it has nothing to do with denominations. :thumbs:

 

[Eric B]

First, yes, John Calvin envisioned Geneva as a place which could serve as an example of Christian government. There was, at the time, no other paradigm for Christianity than that of a state church. Good or bad is irrelevant in this context, as it insists we apply 21st-century mores to a sixteenth-century event.

Finally, as to Calvin, Luther, and others participating in the burning of heretics, we can agree that from our twenty-first century understanding of Scripture, this is repugnant. Again, though, we cannot insist that Christians who lived five centuries ago address situations in ways outside their understanding and experience. Burning was, sadly enough, what one did to heretics. It isn't, cannot be, a right-or-wrong argument except in that it instructs us not to do the same.

How about the original first century understanding of scripture? That was forgotten about. Since the Word of God never changes, we should not aply such a relativistic excuse to their actions; else nominal Christians today can claim that our conservative beliefs on morality and doctrine, do not rellect the "21st century understanding of scripture".
(and it's amazing how many concervatives use that argument for the 16th century!)