If you were not Baptist, ...

[JonC]

CEEC Province USA – A Province of The Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches

There are no EOC close to me.

I do not know where you live.

Are there churches near you?

 

[Walter]

I do not know where you live.

Are there churches near you?

Neither CEEC or EOC are within reasonable driving distance of us.

 

[JonC]

Neither CEEC or EOC are within reasonable driving distance of us.

But are there any churches (any assemblies of Christians)?

 

[Walter]

But are there any churches (any assemblies of Christians)?

Oh, absolutely! We are considered to be in the Bible Belt of Oregon. If there was no Catholic Church in our area, I would attend the Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod) There are also Lutheran churches (Evangelical Lutheran Synod), not to be confused with the ELCA. The Lutheran church-Evangelical Lutheran Synod is still bible believing. I guess if none of the churches that believe in the Real Presence were here, we would attend the Conservative Baptist church in our town. We would ALWAYS find a community of Christians to worship with.

 

[JonC]

Oh, absolutely! We are considered to be in the Bible Belt of Oregon. If there was no Catholic Church in our area, I would attend the Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod) There are also Lutheran churches (Evangelical Lutheran Synod), not to be confused with the ELCA. The Lutheran church-Evangelical Lutheran Synod is still bible believing.

I don't think I've ever been to Oregon. At one of the Baptist churches I attended we had a Catholic (once a Catholic church opened he went there, but still visited from time to time). Tradition is often important to people (I can see why you'd favor Catholic or Lutheran, even though they are theologically opposed to one another).

 

[Walter]

I don't think I've ever been to Oregon. At one of the Baptist churches I attended we had a Catholic (once a Catholic church opened he went there, but still visited from time to time). Tradition is often important to people (I can see why you'd favor Catholic or Lutheran, even though they are theologically opposed to one another).

Lutheran's and Catholics are less opposed to one another than they used to be (ELCA is an exception), check out this document on justification: https://www.lutheranworld.org/sites...laration on the Doctrine of Justification.pdf

 

[AustinC]

If it was not, I would have stayed where I was born -- the EOC.

Look friend, I did not mean to be too harsh with you, but I see in you a tendency which I also discovered in me, and that is to make "truth" so narrow that, in the end and carried to its logical conclusion, you would be able to have Communion with only yourself.

We, children of God, are prone to have "wish dreams" by which we erect an image of the perfect church. We then go to church with the purpose of orchestrating and building the perfect church in which everything fits our exact vision. However, when we interact with redeemed sinners it becomes obvious the flaws of these redeemed sinners make it impossible to have our wish dream come true. We then leave that church with the purpose of trying again. When that fails we move yet again. Ultimately we find that it is impossible to erect our wish dream of our perfect church, so we curse the flaws of the other believers and retreat into ourselves where we imagine the perfect image of the church abides. We fail to see that we created an idol which we have been worshipping and it has taken the place of God as the purpose for which we originally went to church.
When we accept that flawed sinners, redeemed by Christ, make up the church (including us as a flawed creature) we can then go to church, not to build our own image, but to worship our King alongside our flawed brothers. We realize that but for the grace of God we would be damned and thus we are grateful for any and all believers to be united in worship of our King. We stop focusing on our brothers flaws and begin focusing on our Kings love for a wretched group of people whom he has redeemed. We glory in our Redeemer. This is precisely why we go to church. To glory in our King. Come we me, all my flawed brothers and let us glory in our Redeemer.

 

[Van]

But brother, who determines what "Truth" is? If it was easy, there wouldn't be so many denominations. Believe me, I sympathize with you. But what I have decided for myself is this: I will try to find a local church that has a loving spirit and that I can mostly agree with. If we decide not to fellowship with any church that doesn't have 100% of the "Truth", we'll end up being a church of one, and I don't believe that's what Jesus intended.

On a personal note, just in the past few months, I have had a change of mind on something that was very important to me and which I was absolutely convinced that the Bible upheld. This has almost caused me to rethink my church affiliation options, but realistically I don't have much choice where I live.

Blessings to you.

The Truth is not altered by mistaken beliefs.
What doctrine did you believe that the Bible does not uphold.
How can you attend a church just because you cannot find a better one? Doesn't sound like much of a commitment.

 

[1689Dave]

I do believe Scripture is perfect. And no,, Scripture does not furnish what tongues provided (tongues were a sign to the unbeliever about what was being said. .per the Bible). But that is not the point.

A pen can write perfectly - but it is imperfect when used as a car key.

You seem to suggest that Scripture answers all the questions you have. But Paul leaves a lot to mystery (e.g., how will our new bodies be? Paul says we do not know but we will be like Christ).

And you are adding to the passage referenced (you add that this "perfect" thing is the NT....which by necessity denies the perfection of the OT).

But in the context of the passage Paul is not talking about a "perfect" thing but rather than temporary nature of tongues, healing, preaching, teaching, ect. in comparison to love. Hope ends in fruition.

The point is, you do not understand what you are talking about. Perfect = complete and because of this scripture thoroughly furnishes us. Not like tongues and prophecy which only gave partial knowledge until the "complete" word of God arrived. Check the context. It is not as you think.

 

[1689Dave]

If it was not, I would have stayed where I was born -- the EOC.

Look friend, I did not mean to be too harsh with you, but I see in you a tendency which I also discovered in me, and that is to make "truth" so narrow that, in the end and carried to its logical conclusion, you would be able to have Communion with only yourself.

But you sell the truth (for cheap) when you fellowship with those who do not accept it.

 

[ntchristian]

I envy those on here and elsewhere who think they have the "truth" and no one else does. Out of the probable hundreds of thousands who feel the same way, and out of the hundreds of denominations, and multiple thousands of independent churches, I wonder which hold to "truth"? They obviously all believe they do, or they wouldn't be where and who they are. But they can't all be right. So, who determines who/which are right? Is there just one "truth" or many thousands of "truths"? Christians would say there is just one truth, but the way they think, talk, and act would suggest otherwise.

Sorry, but I don't believe in any church that claims to be the one true church or any individual who claims to hold to truth while denying that of others. That is cultism.

My definition of truth would be apostolic, scriptural doctrine. I think the Apostles Creed, though not dated itself to the apostles, covers the basics and is something that most Christians affirm. Anything beyond that is subject to individual interpretation.

 

[JonC]

The point is, you do not understand what you are talking about. Perfect = complete and because of this scripture thoroughly furnishes us. Not like tongues and prophecy which only gave partial knowledge until the "complete" word of God arrived. Check the context. It is not as you think.

You do not understand the passage (what Paul is saying).

You have to look at the context of the passage - not just extract words to justify an addition.

Paul is speaking of love being the greatest gift. Love is eternal. The context here is love, but it grew out of the discussion of tongues. Paul identified several things as temporary (tongues, preaching, healing, teaching, hope, ect). In this passage Paul says that these temporary gifts end when "that which is perfect" comes. You add "the NT" in place of "that which is perfect". But the context of the passage is a principle.

Hope ends in fruition. We do not hope for what we have (our hope is in the resurrection...i.e , when we have "new bodies" and are made "like Christ", we have no need of the hope....it has been realized.

Preaching will not be needed when the purpose has been fulfilled. Teaching, tongues, evangelism, healing.....all of these are temporary and not needed when "that which is perfect has come".

The NT does not take the place of tongues (it is impossible that the NT serves as the "perfection" of tongues because tongues are a sign for the unbeliever about what is being presented (about Scripture). You could argue "that which is perfect" is the testimony of the Spirit....but that is also an illegitimate argument (the words were given to the church in Corinth).


You are adding to Scripture.

 

[1689Dave]

You do not understand the passage (what Paul is saying).

You have to look at the context of the passage - not just extract words to justify an addition.

Paul is speaking of love being the greatest gift. Love is eternal. The context here is love, but it grew out of the discussion of tongues. Paul identified several things as temporary (tongues, preaching, healing, teaching, hope, ect). In this passage Paul says that these temporary gifts end when "that which is perfect" comes. You add "the NT" in place of "that which is perfect". But the context of the passage is a principle.

Hope ends in fruition. We do not hope for what we have (our hope is in the resurrection...i.e , when we have "new bodies" and are made "like Christ", we have no need of the hope....it has been realized.

Preaching will not be needed when the purpose has been fulfilled. Teaching, tongues, evangelism, healing.....all of these are temporary and not needed when "that which is perfect has come".

The NT does not take the place of tongues (it is impossible that the NT serves as the "perfection" of tongues because tongues are a sign for the unbeliever about what is being presented (about Scripture). You could argue "that which is perfect" is the testimony of the Spirit....but that is also an illegitimate argument (the words were given to the church in Corinth).


You are adding to Scripture.

The point is that the "perfect" is scripture that explains the OT removing the darkness.

 

[1689Dave]

I envy those on here and elsewhere who think they have the "truth" and no one else does. Out of the probable hundreds of thousands who feel the same way, and out of the hundreds of denominations, and multiple thousands of independent churches, I wonder which hold to "truth"? They obviously all believe they do, or they wouldn't be where and who they are. But they can't all be right. So, who determines who/which are right? Is there just one "truth" or many thousands of "truths"? Christians would say there is just one truth, but the way they think, talk, and act would suggest otherwise.

Sorry, but I don't believe in any church that claims to be the one true church or any individual who claims to hold to truth while denying that of others. That is cultism.

My definition of truth would be apostolic, scriptural doctrine. I think the Apostles Creed, though not dated itself to the apostles, covers the basics and is something that most Christians affirm. Anything beyond that is subject to individual interpretation.

Scripture teaches about a great apostasy just before the Lord returns. I see this happening everywhere I look. If you think Christ's return is imminent, you should be seeing this too, unless you are part of it.

 

[JonC]

The point is that the "perfect" is scripture that explains the OT removing the darkness.

There was never darkness in the OT. The darkness was in man.

And this is not the context of the passage.

There is nothing in Scripture to indicate the OT is imperfect.

 

[1689Dave]

There was never darkness in the OT. The darkness was in man.

And this is not the context of the passage.

There is nothing in Scripture to indicate the OT is imperfect.

The point being most were not born again. But in the NT, only the born again can interpret the Old correctly using Christ's teachings.

 

[Salty]

There was never darkness in the OT. The darkness was in man.

And this is not the context of the passage.

There is nothing in Scripture to indicate the OT is imperfect.

Jon - how bad does your head hurt - after banging it on the wall all this time???

 

[Salty]

Since this thread is so far off OP - and it has passed the normal # of posts - it is now closed