Denominations Staying Consistent

[Anomaly]

In light of Euty and Budge bashing on the Cath denomination with reckless abandon, a question becomes obvious to me. The constant cry is how the Caths have not stayed consistent and have sunk into idolatry or what ever because it doesn't follow the bible. I don't agree with some of E & B's conclusions, since the are usually illogical and based in bias, but I do agree Cath's share the same problem as all the other denominations, a lack of consistency.

My question to B & E is if the Caths have strayed so far, what about the other 'christian denominations' that allow rampant divorce, gay marriages, women preachers, abortion, and other stuff that is clearly not biblically supportable (or is it?) Which 'denomination' is any better at staying scripturally consistent in actual practice than the others? Are there really any? Is thay why Euty is so secretive about his choice from the many denominations out there?

Edited September 13, 2006 by Anomaly

[Eutychus]

[quote]
My question to B & E is if the Caths have strayed so far, what about the other 'christian denominations' that allow rampant divorce, gay marriages, women preachers, abortion, and other stuff that is clearly not biblically supportable (or is it?) Which 'denomination' is any better at staying scripturally consistent in actual practice than the others? Are there really any? Is thay why Euty is so secretive about his choice from the many denominations out there?[/quote]

Actually you are dead on here. I agree totally, wholeheartedly that all denominations have huge problems, mine included.

What continually esacapes the Catholic mindset, is that "Church/Ekklesia" doesn't mean denomination, but is the body called out to be in Christ. There are good Christians in every denomination, and bad ones. Mostly the bad ones seem to run the churches, sadly it seems.

That is why continually, over and over, we are warned of the wolves WITHIN that will bring on heresy, apostacy, and lead so many to perdition.

The reason I'm so "secretive" is mentally I'm *mentally in* a denomination that I do not attend. I use the internet to "attend" the services and bible studies online, from four of their better and most gifted pastors and churches. Sadly this is the one I would love to join, for some very sound reasons, is over 1000 churches strong, and now establishing around the world, the local branch here, is still 14 miles away, is just getting started meets in a rented room and the pastor is far far below the standards of the overall quality that the denomination has. So I attend another church, one that is very close, but still isn't what I know is out there, if you are fortunate enough to be geographically blessed.

In case you are wondering, this "ideal church" stresses expostitional teaching of the scriptures, meaning you start at Page one, line of Genesis, and for three years, page by page go through the entire bible, skipping nothing, until you hit the last chapter of Revelation and then do it all over again. Thereby ensuring that everyone gets "The WHOLE counsel of God."

And they do praise and worship music right too, I might add, which my current church does outstanding too.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1062110' date='Sep 13 2006, 05:46 PM']
Actually you are dead on here. I agree totally, wholeheartedly that all denominations have huge problems, mine included.

What continually esacapes the Catholic mindset, is that "Church/Ekklesia" doesn't mean denomination, but is the body called out to be in Christ. There are good Christians in every denomination, and bad ones. Mostly the bad ones seem to run the churches, sadly it seems.

That is why continually, over and over, we are warned of the wolves WITHIN that will bring on heresy, apostacy, and lead so many to perdition.

The reason I'm so "secretive" is mentally I'm *mentally in* a denomination that I do not attend. I use the internet to "attend" the services and bible studies online, from four of their better and most gifted pastors and churches. Sadly this is the one I would love to join, for some very sound reasons, is over 1000 churches strong, and now establishing around the world, the local branch here, is still 14 miles away, is just getting started meets in a rented room and the pastor is far far below the standards of the overall quality that the denomination has. So I attend another church, one that is very close, but still isn't what I know is out there, if you are fortunate enough to be geographically blessed.

In case you are wondering, this "ideal church" stresses expostitional teaching of the scriptures, meaning you start at Page one, line of Genesis, and for three years, page by page go through the entire bible, skipping nothing, until you hit the last chapter of Revelation and then do it all over again. Thereby ensuring that everyone gets "The WHOLE counsel of God."

And they do praise and worship music right too, I might add, which my current church does outstanding too.
[/quote]So how do you know this 'denom' is righter than any others and won't be in the same boat 15 years from now?

[Budge]

[quote]I do agree Cath's share the same problem as all the other denominations, a lack of consistency.[/quote]

Let me give this one to you straight...

MOST churches are falling away. Liberalism with gay marriage, abortion, divorce etc, is part of that pic, and I include the Catholic church in that mix. It is part of the great apostasty. This is why depending on any denomination is going to lead to disappointment and misdirection. Depend on Jesus Christ, and hold any pastor, church or denomination you are part of accountable to His Word.

{Catholicism is totally already fallen away and apostate but they have plenty of company in the mainline Prot world. Include Word of Faithers, Purpose Driven Life, and endless other non-Biblical teachings even in non-denominational churches}

There is a lot in the Baptist churchs, that I think is wrong, {dont support jerry falwell, and some preachers like that, POLITICAL IDOLATRY, Dominonism etc] Even some Baptist churches are being infected by interfaithism, globalism and liberalism. Some Bpatists are even jumping on the Catholic ecumenical bandwagon--American Baptist Association etc.



But here is the difference...

My salvation is not in the indp Baptist church I attend but in Jesus Christ.

My worry for Catholics is they are TAUGHT to follow the wolves in sheep's clothing no matter how bad things get. So often times I meet in Catholic blogland Catholics who even AGREE with me about the interfaith movement...and more who stay within the Catholic Church, believing the Pope is an apostate.

The very core of the Catholic church teaches dependence on the system no matter what.


Most devoted Christians now, do see most churches as falling into apostasty. I believe the days are coming where the churches will be so bad, and Christians will be persecuted that we will be back to how the early church started, worshipping in homes.
What are you poor Catholics going to be doing when that happen?

I believe denominations are a bondage of their own.

When someone puts a specific denomination {INCLUDING BEING CATHOLIC-_ROMAN OR WHATEVER RITE} ahead of being a CHRISTIAN there is a problem.

When people ask what are you, I always say [u]I am a Christian[/u] that attends an indp Baptist church.

If I ever move, I could actually end up being in a church that is not indp Baptist, what matters is if it is Christian and teaches Gods Word?

Catholics dont understand that sort of overlap, they are taught to always stick to THE BRAND so to speak.

Edited September 14, 2006 by Budge

[SJP]

Budge,

this is in no way an attack, I have some serious questions.

You said "I could actually end up being in a church that is not indp Baptist, what matters is if it is Christian and teaches Gods Word"

How do you know that the Church is truly Christian and teaching the True Word of God?

You stated "I believe denominations are a bondage of their own." This leads me to believe that you rely on your own private interpretation of scripture to determine what the True Word of God is.

Don't you think that private judgment leads to doctrinal anarchy?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Budge' post='1062163' date='Sep 13 2006, 09:00 PM']
Let me give this one to you straight...

MOST churches are falling away. Liberalism with gay marriage, abortion, divorce etc, is part of that pic, and I include the Catholic church in that mix. It is part of the great apostasty. This is why depending on any denomination is going to lead to disappointment and misdirection. Depend on Jesus Christ, and hold any pastor, church or denomination you are part of accountable to His Word.

{Catholicism is totally already fallen away and apostate but they have plenty of company in the mainline Prot world. Include Word of Faithers, Purpose Driven Life, and endless other non-Biblical teachings even in non-denominational churches}

There is a lot in the Baptist churchs, that I think is wrong, {dont support jerry falwell, and some preachers like that, POLITICAL IDOLATRY, Dominonism etc] Even some Baptist churches are being infected by interfaithism, globalism and liberalism. Some Bpatists are even jumping on the Catholic ecumenical bandwagon--American Baptist Association etc.
But here is the difference...

My salvation is not in the indp Baptist church I attend but in Jesus Christ.

My worry for Catholics is they are TAUGHT to follow the wolves in sheep's clothing no matter how bad things get. So often times I meet in Catholic blogland Catholics who even AGREE with me about the interfaith movement...and more who stay within the Catholic Church, believing the Pope is an apostate.

The very core of the Catholic church teaches dependence on the system no matter what.
Most devoted Christians now, do see most churches as falling into apostasty. I believe the days are coming where the churches will be so bad, and Christians will be persecuted that we will be back to how the early church started, worshipping in homes.
What are you poor Catholics going to be doing when that happen?

I believe denominations are a bondage of their own.

When someone puts a specific denomination {INCLUDING BEING CATHOLIC-_ROMAN OR WHATEVER RITE} ahead of being a CHRISTIAN there is a problem.

When people ask what are you, I always say [u]I am a Christian[/u] that attends an indp Baptist church.

If I ever move, I could actually end up being in a church that is not indp Baptist, what matters is if it is Christian and teaches Gods Word?

Catholics dont understand that sort of overlap, they are taught to always stick to THE BRAND so to speak.
[/quote]

But you make a mistake by including Catholics in your list, since you will NEVER until hell freezes over find the Pope says abortion is ok, gay marriage is ok, or divorce is ok. You CAN find that in just about any other group you can think of. Every other group has fallen into those sins, but you never find that with us. Can you find individual sinning catholics committing those sins? - absolutely. But it will never be a teaching of the church - ever, ever, ever.

[Budge]

[quote]But you make a mistake by including Catholics in your list, since you will NEVER until hell freezes over find the Pope says abortion is ok, gay marriage is ok, or divorce is ok.[/quote]

Divorce is ok in the Catholic Church.... promoted under the false system of annulments where the Catholic Church can rule that even a 12 year old marriage with 3 kids "never really exsisted".

Homosexuality is ok in the Catholic Church...promoted under the fact that a high number of the Catholic clergy is homosexual. Also the idea of a "chaste" homosexual in the Catholic Church, is wrong as well, instead of homosexuality being a sin struggle one can fully overcome in Jesus Christ, many Catholics believe people are BORN gay.

Abortion, the one thing the Catholic Church still gets right, but why are they promoting the biggest death supporting organization in the world which is the United Nations?

These things by themselves do not form a life-sustaining faith or one that leads a person to become a new creature in Christ who would be convicted to stay away from all those things.

[Budge]

[quote]Budge,

this is in no way an attack, I have some serious questions.

You said "I could actually end up being in a church that is not indp Baptist, what matters is if it is Christian and teaches Gods Word"

How do you know that the Church is truly Christian and teaching the True Word of God?

You stated "I believe denominations are a bondage of their own." This leads me to believe that you rely on your own private interpretation of scripture to determine what the True Word of God is.

Don't you think that private judgment leads to doctrinal anarchy?[/quote]


Your decision to even follow the men of Rome is a PRIVATE JUDGEMENT.

The standard I use is the Word of God. It is not as much a mystery as the clergy have fooled you into believing, basically that the Bible cannot be understood. One can understand the Bible if they study, read it and led by the Holy Spirit--born again.

The sad thing is Rome has chained the Word of God away from your hearts telling you it is impossible to understand.

When people move like for a new job or something, often they do have to choose a new church.

What I did in choosing my present church, was to make sure theyd adhered to Gods Word instead of teaching man-made traditions.

There are ways to figure out if you are entering a decent church or ending up in a Kool-Aid drinking cult or a liturgical nightmare.

1. Pray to God to lead you to a good church. I did this with my present church which I found way off the beaten track.

2. Seek a congregation that is evangelical and Bible-based. Do they witness the gospel to folks? Are they on fire for the Lord? Do they believe in inerrant truth of the Bible? {There are fundamentals churches can be tested by}

3. Keep in mind you are looking for a fellowship of believers. Find people who love the Lord and who love another, people who can have good Christian fellowship with and in return love and serve.

4. Look for a church that preaches the Word of God--sound doctrine can be tested by the Word of God, proclaims this Word and is not compromised by the ecumenical movement, interfaithism, liberalism or sacramentalism.

These are my own suggestions for a new Christian to find a good church.

[SJP]

Budge stated:

"The standard I use is the Word of God. It is not as much a mystery as the clergy have fooled you into believing, basically that the Bible cannot be understood. One can understand the Bible if they study, read it and led by the Holy Spirit--born again."

I would have to disagree with you on this one. There are plenty of well intentioned Christians who do their best to be faithful to their interpretation of the Bible, yet there are massive differences between denominations on "Essential" doctrines.

If I was not Catholic, we could study the exact same Bible for 50 years and in the end, come to drastically different conclusions.

How do we know who is right? We both inevitably look to the same source as our authority (the Bible).

Wouldn't it make sense for there to be a single authority to settle such disputes? An authority that traces its roots back to Christ, a Church that the first Christians looked to as the proper authority?

[Budge]

[quote]I would have to disagree with you on this one. There are plenty of well intentioned Christians who do their best to be faithful to their interpretation of the Bible, yet there are massive differences between denominations on "Essential" doctrines.[/quote]

I visit churches all the time, of other denominations, actually there is not the massive differences Catholics imagine. They are either totally like YOU GUYS...Anglican, Epsicopalian, Emergent and Lutheran churches may as well be Catholic--{Ive visited them all during my life} or lost in liberalism--UU, United Methodist, United Church of Christ, others the ones that stick to the Bible and dont listen to the siren call of the world and who arent marching after Rome, are pretty well the same, preach Gods Word, the essentials are the same. They may use elders instead of one pastor, may do tongues--even some baptists do tongues, disagree on the timing of the Rapture, but most Christians entering another church where the Word of God is preached would be perfectly happy worshipping and praising God along with the folks there. {which ive done visiting a Free Methodist--more conservative branch, Pente and other churches}

The problem with human beings is instead of putting trust in God, and letting Him lead you to truth, they want to have a human being give them all their answers.

[SJP]

Better yet, an authority that Christ himself ordered?

[Budge]

I dont believe the Pope is a successor to Peter.

The Popes life is nothing like Peters.

"Silver and Gold I have none"

[SJP]

Budge said:

"I visit churches all the time, of other denominations, actually there is not the massive differences Catholics imagine.... the essentials are the same."

Please respond to this article:

[url="http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/09/per...-scripture.html"]http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/09/per...-scripture.html[/url]

It is worth the read.

The conclusion is inescapable: either biblical perspicuity is a falsehood or one or more of the doctrines of regeneration, justification, sanctification, salvation, election, free will, predestination, perseverance, eternal security, the Atonement, original sin, the Eucharist, and baptism, all "five points" of Calvinism (TULIP) and issues affecting the very gospel itself - are not central. Protestants can't have it both ways.




Ahh looks like the link is down,

here is the full text

With respect to agreement on "Essentials"

This is often and casually stated, but when scrutinized, it collapses under its own weight. Right from the beginning, the fault lines of Protestantism appeared when Zwingli and Oecolampadius (two lesser Reformers) differed with Luther on the Real Presence, and the Anabaptists dissented on the Eucharist, infant baptism, ordination, and the function of civil authority.

Luther regarded these fellow Protestants as "damned" and "out of the Church" for these reasons. Reformers John Calvin and Martin Bucer held to a third position on the Eucharist (broadly speaking), intermediate between Luther's Real Presence (consubstantiation) and Zwingli's purely symbolic belief. By 1577, the book 200 Interpretations of the Words, "This is My Body" was published at Ingolstadt, Germany. This is the fruit of perspicuity, and it was quick to appear.

Protestants will often maintain that the Eucharist and baptism, for instance, are neither primary nor essential doctrines. This is curious, since these are the two sacraments that the majority of Protestants accept. Jesus said (John 6:53): Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. This certainly sounds essential, even to the extent that a man's salvation might be in jeopardy.

St. Paul, too, regards communion with equally great seriousness and of the utmost importance to one's spiritual well-being and relationship with Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 10:14-22, 11:23-30). Thus we are already in the realm of salvation - a primary doctrine. Lutherans and many Anglicans (for example, the Oxford Tractarians and C.S. Lewis), believe in the Real Presence, whereas most evangelicals do not, yet this is not considered cause for alarm or even discomfort.

Protestants also differ on other soteriological issues: most Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans, pentecostals, some Baptists, and many non-denominationalists and other groups are Arminian and accept free will and the possibility of falling away from salvation (apostasy), while Presbyterians, Reformed and a few Baptist denominations and other groups are Calvinist and deny free will and the possibility of apostasy for the elect. In contrast to the former denominations, the latter groups have a stronger view of the nature of original sin, and deny that the Atonement is universal.

Traditional, orthodox Methodism (following founder John Wesley) and many "high church" Anglicans have had views of sanctification (that is, the relationship of faith and works, and of God's enabling and preceding grace and man's cooperation) akin to that of Catholicism. These are questions of how one repents and is saved (justification) and of what is required afterwards to either manifest or maintain this salvation (sanctification and perseverance). Thus, they are primary doctrines, even by Protestant criteria.

The same state of affairs is true concerning baptism, where Protestants are split into infant and adult camps. Furthermore, the infant camp contains those who accept baptismal regeneration (Lutherans, Anglicans, and to some extent, Methodists), as does the adult camp (Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ). Regeneration absolutely has a bearing on salvation, and therefore is a primary doctrine. The Salvation Army and the Quakers don't baptize at all (the latter doesn't even celebrate the Eucharist). Thus, there are five distinct competing belief-systems among Protestants with regard to baptism.

Scripture seems to clearly refer to baptismal regeneration in Acts 2:38 (forgiveness of sins), 22:16 (wash away your sins), Romans 6:3-4, 1 Corinthians 6:11, Titus 3:5 (he saved us, . . . by the washing of regeneration), and other passages.

For this reason, many prominent Protestant individuals and denominations have held to the position of baptismal regeneration, which is anathema to the Baptist / Presbyterian / Reformed branch of Protestantism - the predominant evangelical outlook at present. We need look no further than Martin Luther himself, from whom all Protestants inherit their understanding of both sola Scriptura and faith alone (sola fide) as the prerequisites for salvation and justification. Luther largely agrees with the Catholic position on sacramental and regenerative infant baptism:



Little children . . . are free in every way, secure and saved solely through the glory of their baptism . . . Through the prayer of the believing church which presents it, . . . the infant is changed, cleansed, and renewed by inpoured faith. Nor should I doubt that even a godless adult could be changed, in any of the sacraments, if the same church prayed for and presented him, as we read of the paralytic in the Gospel, who was healed through the faith of others (Mark 2:3-12). I should be ready to admit that in this sense the sacraments of the New Law are efficacious in conferring grace, not only to those who do not, but even to those who do most obstinately present an obstacle.

(The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 1520, from the translation of A.T.W. Steinhauser, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, rev. ed., 1970, 197)
Likewise, in his Large Catechism (1529), Luther writes:


Expressed in the simplest form, the power, the effect, the benefit, the fruit and the purpose of baptism is to save. No one is baptized that he may become a prince, but, as the words declare [of Mark 16:16], that he may be saved. But to be saved, we know very well, is to be delivered from sin, death, and Satan, and to enter Christ's kingdom and live forever with him . . . Through the Word, baptism receives the power to become the washing of regeneration, as St. Paul calls it in Titus 3:5 . . . Faith clings to the water and believes it to be baptism which effects pure salvation and life . . .

When sin and conscience oppress us . . . you may say: It is a fact that I am baptized, but, being baptized, I have the promise that I shall be saved and obtain eternal life
for both soul and body . . . Hence, no greater jewel can adorn our body or soul than baptism; for through it perfect holiness and salvation become accessible to us . . .

(From edition by Augsburg Publishing House (Minneapolis), 1935, sections 223-224, 230, 162, 165)


Anglicanism concurs with Luther on this matter. In its authoritative Thirty-Nine Articles (1563, language revised 1801), Article 27, Of Baptism, reads as follows:



Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.

The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

(From The Book of Common Prayer, New York: The Seabury Press, 1979, 873)

The venerable John Wesley, founder of Methodism, who is widely admired by Protestants and Catholics alike, agreed, too, that children are regenerated (and justified initially) by means of infant baptism. From this position he never wavered. In his Articles of Religion (1784), which is a revised version of the Anglican Articles, he retains an abridged form of the clause on baptism (No. 17) , stating that it is "a sign of regeneration, or the new birth."

The doctrine of baptism in particular, as well as other doctrinal disputes mentioned above, illustrate the irresolvable Protestant dilemma with regard to its fallacious notion of perspicuity. Again, the Bible is obviously not perspicuous enough to efficiently eliminate these differences, unless one arrogantly maintains that sin always blinds those in opposing camps from seeing obvious truths, which even a "plowboy" (Luther's famous phrase) ought to be able to grasp. Obviously, an authoritative (and even infallible) interpreter is needed whether or not the Bible is perspicuous enough to be theoretically understood without help. Nothing could be clearer than that. Paper infallibility is no substitute for conciliar and/or papal infallibility, or at least an authoritative denominational (Creedal / Confessional) authority, if nothing else.

The conclusion is inescapable: either biblical perspicuity is a falsehood or one or more of the doctrines of regeneration, justification, sanctification, salvation, election, free will, predestination, perseverance, eternal security, the Atonement, original sin, the Eucharist, and baptism, all "five points" of Calvinism (TULIP) and issues affecting the very gospel itself - are not central. Protestants can't have it both ways.


"Heart speaks to heart" - John Henry Cardinal Newman The Perspicuity ("Clearness") of Scripture
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
[url="http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/09/per...-scripture.html"]http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/09/per...-scripture.html[/url]

[Budge]

Im not a Protestant...

[KnightofChrist]

Well Budge, you are quoted as saying you go to a Baptist Church, The Baptist Church is a break away Protestant Church...