Is Christianity splitting in 3?

Excelsior

Asiaprod, in another thread wrote:

I have a lot of confusion understanding the US/Canadian approach to Christianity and say the more (for me) traditional European approach. At time it almost seems that there is a new brand of Christianity being started in that great land of free enterprise in the West Only it seems to be far less tolerant and require a far stricter adherence to the written word... In this day and age, with all the troubles and scandals that have occurred, one would think that the way forward for any religion was to become far more humanistic in its outlook.... Does a more ridged approach indeed move the belief system forward, or does it set it back 200 years. Or worse still, could this be the beginning of a complete new form of an existing belief system.

...does anybody out there see a widening rift forming between these practitioners (competitors) of the same religion or am I just imagining it all?

What he was articulating was a divide that he perceived between the very confident and fortright American evangelical churches and the more consciously soft-spoken evangelicalism that holds sway in Europe. While the American church is growing steadily, the European church is diminishing and the real news isn't reported because it is far too troubling for the myth of progress which is the massive and unprecedented growth in Christianity in the southern hemisphere. Africa, South-East Asia, South and Central America are all undergoing decades long revivals. Stephen Lungu, who was recently interviewed by Gerry Ryan, has seen days where 20000 people in Malawi have become Christian.

So in a world where staunch, old-school, straight-up Christianity is dominating the parts of the world we don't want to live in, an aggressive Christianity with a strong anti-intellectual strain is holding sway in America and the church in Europe is falling to pieces as it can't even be sure enough of itself to say what it believes, is Christianity still one?

Is there any hope that an Anglican from Nigeria, a Catholic from Vancouver and a Reformed Charismatic from Stockholm could get along? Are people threatened by the African/South American model? What do people think of the reports of millions converting in China?

Basically, why is this forum not interested in global Christianity?

BrianCalgary

Actually I am very interested in the stae of the church world wide. Hence my joy in finding this site. Getting perspectives form the Europeans and then lo and behold someone from Japan.

I have been to Central America (Guatemala) and discovered that the church there can be quite legalistic and smothering.

In North America there are a few camps: liberal (gay marriages are OK), conservative (Biblical authority) and fundamentalist (if you don't share my view exactly, you're out). The fundamentalist would hold to no dancing, no drinking and Catholics are evil, but to name a few. The conservative in my view would hold to biblical authority with wonderful in house debates on baptism, transubstantiation, rapture and so on. But, no backing down on the deity of Christ and Him being the way to salvation (this is where I fit). We would also like to work on the great commission.

The conservative will not accept the liberal point of view because they don't hold to biblical authority. The fundamentalist view has many flaws in the hermeneutics and exegesis of the word.

Do I think I'm right? Yes. But I have plenty of room for different worship to accept everything from pentecostal worship to RC worship as being Christian, as long as the heart of the person worshipping is truly seeking relationship with Christ.

That is just one man's view from the shadows of the Rocky Mountains.

larryone

I'm of the ilk that considers there are as many varieties of christianity as there are christians. What I believe about Jesus differs from what most christians believe.
But the central teachings remain the same - those that were taught at the sermon on the mount... that we should love one another as christ loved us. Why be concerned over little differences?

Excelsior

Well because if you try and read the Sermon on the Mount, it will take about 10 minutes. If you actually pay attention to the text in Matthew and look at what it says in Luke 6 you will see that the Sermon on the Mount seems to be much more like a weekend retreat which has produced the Manifesto for the Kingdom, as many theologians call the sermon.

Then if you pay really close attention to it you will begin to ask who is Jesus addressing? Initially it seems to be his followers. The teachings are directed for the attention of those who follow his yoke. These are the people who would become the first Christians.

Maybe then you would notice that the manifesto begins with "blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven." If you tried to say this today you might write: "blessed are those without standing in the realm of the soul, those who count themselves incapable of making an account for themselves- it is they who will gain eternal life." When you think about what that means, Jesus looks less and less like another great teacher and more and more like someone who thinks they are God. The gateway to the Sermon on the Mount, the check you have to pass if you want to get to the rest of it, requires that you give up any hope of self-sufficiency.

Then you would notice that Jesus is remixing Torah. He is taking the Law and enhancing it. Only One can redefine the terms of the Law and that is the Lord Himself. When Jesus extends the eye for an eye rule into turn the other cheek, he is claiming nothing short of divinity.

Then and only then would we get around to discussing whether he actually means for us to interpret the beatitudes literally or to aim for them knowing we can't reach them or merely to take them as an inspirational incentive.

So to answer your question, I think even in the Sermon on the Mount you don't have little differences but gaps so gaping that one can't imagine bridges to span them.

larryone

Here's a bridge for ye:
"Love your neighbour as yourself"
As for the eye for an eye thing, I dont think Jesus was claiming divinity, I think he was preaching common sense. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Love your enemy.

Excelsior

Should the Jews of 1930s loved their enemies?

Who are our neighbours? To what extent should we love them? Should we treat them as equivalent to our spouse and children? And by what authority does Jesus, a Jew, reinterpret Torah except by claiming to be the one person who can reinterpret Torah- that is, God?

larryone

Excelsior wrote:

Should the Jews of 1930s loved their enemies?

Who are our neighbours? To what extent should we love them? Should we treat them as equivalent to our spouse and children? And by what authority does Jesus, a Jew, reinterpret Torah except by claiming to be the one person who can reinterpret Torah- that is, God?

That's a very tough question to answer, and I really dont know how to go about attempting to answer that question. But what I will say is that the Nazis of the 1930s should have loved the Jews. They were the ones claiming to be christian. Most Germans of the time did consider thamselves to be Christains, as did many members of the Nazi party.

Who are our neighbours? Everyone. The message that Jesus brought was for everyone, and everyone's neighbour.
To what extent should we love them? Jesus tells us that we should love them as he loves us.
The Torah was penned by men. It is and was read and interperted by men. Jesus brought an interpretation that differed from most of his time. But I dont think all of the most important teachings that Jesus brought involved re-interpreting what came before.

BrianCalgary

The Old Testament was penned by men, but inspired by God. The Jews recognized that the Bible was God's communication with mankind and that it set out God's laws. They knew that it could not be changed by anyone but God.

Then along comes Jesus. His first recorded (Luke 4:16-28) speech in a synagogue as an adult He proclaims that Isaiah 61:1-2 has now been fulfilled through Himself. It was quite a bold statement. The next three years He fought with the Jewish leaders because He interpreted the Law in a new way, but did it with the authority of God, and worse for the Pharisees, people recognized Him as God and were obeying His teachings and forsaking the teachings of the Pharisees.

larryone

And so we again wander into the question that so many threads here go to:
Jesus; God, or God inspired revolutionary?
My point is that this is unimportant compared to the actual teachings of Jesus.

Excelsior

To claim that context and intention is unimportant to meaning is to fall into the trap of fundamentalism that seeks to detach the life and ministry of Jesus from "teachings" which we can select and apply as we deem fit. Such slicing of Jesus from Jesus' teachings can't be achieved while still claiming to care to read what the text says instead of making the text say something you want it to.

larryone, the teachings change depending on who Jesus is. If he is just a moral teacher then he is (and I mean this technically, not perjoratively) a failed Jew who over-extends himself preposterously like a man who stops people on Grafton St and assures them that their mortgage has been repaid.

If he thinks he is the Son of God but isn't, then you have to deal with the reverberations from this dire epistemological failing.

If he thinks he is the Son of God and is, then you have to deal with the insanely huge implications as God becoming a man in the form of a Palestinian carpenter.

Each of these three possible outcomes forces you to reinterpret his teaching.

larryone

Excelsior wrote:

Each of these three possible outcomes forces you to reinterpret his teaching.

Do they force us to reinterpret "love your neighbour as yourself" ?
Whether or not we consider Jesus=God, the definition of "love" in the above statement does not change. Jesus loves us how? As God loves us. This does not depend on whether or not Jesus and God are/were the same, only on the belief that the love of Jesus and the love of God are the same.

(In my humble opinion and/or belief)

Excelsior

No need to add the disclaimer that it was in your opinion. Everything on this forum is someone's opinion!

You haven't really answered the challenge I posed in my last entry. Maybe you thought my challenge wasn't worth responding to but all you've done is say, there is no challenge here.

If Jesus thought incorrectly that he was the Son of God, then there is a fatal flaw that makes listening to him on anything a procedure that might justifiably be called foolish. If he thought he was just a moral teacher then you have to deal with the fact that the records about him by his followers depict him in an entirely different and more divine light and so you have to mistrust the rest of the information we have about him, even the golden rule. Finally, if he is actually the Son of God, then that information is the most invaluable you will ever have.

Regardless, do you think you fulfill the golden rule and if not, is it possible to fulfill it?

larryone

Excelsior wrote:

No need to add the disclaimer that it was in your opinion. Everything on this forum is someone's opinion!

Alot of people here seem to state things as fact. Whenever I re-read a post I'm going to make, I feel more comfortable adding this at the end if it sounds like I'm stating it as fact.

Excelsior wrote:

You haven't really answered the challenge I posed in my last entry. Maybe you thought my challenge wasn't worth responding to but all you've done is say, there is no challenge here.

I actually amn't sure if I consider it worth responding to or not. I'd have to go over it a bit more and consider it...

Excelsior wrote:

If Jesus thought incorrectly that he was the Son of God, then there is a fatal flaw that makes listening to him on anything a procedure that might justifiably be called foolish.

I consider that Jesus was a son of God. Not the. I dont think it is entirely clear and absolutely definite - what Jesus thought he was. If he thought incorrectly that he was the son of God, then yea.... foolish, etc... I consider that he was a son of God, a good one. I also consider you to be a son of God, and all of my neighbours, and everyone else. I consider Jesus to be a son who had an understanding of God that was of an amazing callibre. Up there with Buddah, Muhommad, and a handful of others. I consider his teachings to be inspired by God, although I consider some interpretations of the accounts we have of him questionable.

Excelsior wrote:

If he thought he was just a moral teacher then you have to deal with the fact that the records about him by his followers depict him in an entirely different and more divine light and so you have to mistrust the rest of the information we have about him, even the golden rule. Finally, if he is actually the Son of God, then that information is the most invaluable you will ever have.

I dont think that the records about him by his followers explicitly define him as being God - this is something that has been debated at great lenght on these boards, and it's a discussion I dont care to get into. (yet) I think these records do convey alot of the teachings and the messages quite well and quite clearly, but I dont fully trust everything therein. I think the pen-holders may possibly have put a slight spin on things. This thought does not invalidate everything tho - the very core teaching of universal love is still there.

If he is THE... then yea, but that doesnt make the accounts of those pen-holders perfect. I consider Jesus was inspired by God. I consider those pen-holders were inspired by Jesus.

Excelsior wrote:

Regardless, do you think you fulfill the golden rule and if not, is it possible to fulfill it?

I dont think I fulfil the rule, I dont think I ever will, but it is a thing to aspire to. Very few have ever gotten there. Some of their names I have mentioned above, some others may have existed. I think Jesus was one of them.

I'll go for food and come back to this later.....

Edit - I have returned from foodage, I think I'm done with this post =0) Not sure if I've really answered your challenge.... Have I?

solas

excelsior wrote:

Is there any hope that an Anglican from Nigeria, a Catholic from Vancouver and a Reformed Charismatic from Stockholm could get along?

I always thought so, in fact I always thought an Irish catholic could get along with just about anybody.
Scripture are guidelines for living but should not take priority over our sense of humanity. I think its up to us at the end of the day. If people want to spend their lives judging our differences according to our respective religions, I don't see how anything we will ever be achieved. When you put it all aside you very soon see just how alike we are.

<edit>. I don't get to church very often (I'm lazy) but I've found myself watching this on an occasional sunday morning http://www.hourofpower.org/
I don't know what kind of Christianity it is but, great stuff and I'm learning a lot.

larryone

I agree with you solas. While I'm on a christianity forum, I may aswell put it in the form of looking at the central rule of thumb. If they can aspire to love one another as Jesus loved them, then they'd have no problems. I think they should accept differences in belief and not bicker over it (or kill over it, as has been done in the past...)

(I dont ususlly talk about this sort of stuff in this sort of context tho - It's interesting.)

larryone

Excelsior?

Excelsior

Solas, I completely agree with you on there being no barriers but human pride to unity. Ecumenicism is sort of my burning passion and I think that unity already exists between Christians because each of us follows Christ as individuals. Our different modes of relating to him should be irrelevant because we are on the same corporate journey. To rob the language from Vatican II, we are the pilgrimaging people of God.

As such, I think the approach we bring to ecumenics is not one of consciously building up links but instead revealing what is already there, holding us together.

I disagree about the Irish Catholic thing though. An Irish Christian who goes to a Catholic church is probably even more capable of getting on with everyone else.

I also don't know about this Hour of Power stuff since I express my republicanism by only having the 4 domestic channels.

Larryone, the way Jesus loves us depends entirely on who he is. That unity that brings Christians of all expressions together is dependent on Jesus being more than just a nice guy with a witty turn of phrase and definitely can't survive him being a mentalist.

In the last post you dealt with a lot of what I had challenged you over really and the issues that raises are for a different thread (and as you said a thread you don't want to start now). I guess my point is that a unity founded on a good teacher probably isn't resilient enough to overcome personal agendas and the pen-holders, as you phrase them, are the only informants we have really.

larryone

Excelsior wrote:

no barriers but human pride to unity. Ecumenicism is sort of my burning passion and I think that unity already exists between Christians because each of us follows Christ as individuals. Our different modes of relating to him should be irrelevant because we are on the same corporate journey.

I would agree with this completely, but I think I'm bringing it a bit too far than you might feel comfortable with. I think these different modes of relating to Christ *even w.r.t. deity* should be irrelevant.

Excelsior wrote:

Larryone, the way Jesus loves us depends entirely on who he is. That unity that brings Christians of all expressions together is dependent on Jesus being more than just a nice guy with a witty turn of phrase and definitely can't survive him being a mentalist.

I'm not saying that we should consider it in either of those contexts. I tend to think of Jesus in a similar way to how Islam regards him, and certainly not as a ley man (which I think most people will agree he definitely wasnt).

Excelsior wrote:

I guess my point is that a unity founded on a good teacher probably isn't resilient enough to overcome personal agendas and the pen-holders, as you phrase them, are the only informants we have really.

I'm not trying to consider Jesus as being merely a "good teacher". The messages brought by Muhammad and Buddah were resilient enough, without them being considered as being God. I would dare to put Christ into the same bracket as these.

Excelsior

And dare on sir!

I would instinctively say "no no no. If you don't think Jesus wasn't resurrected and all that jazz then you can't be part of my gang". Then I think for a moment about how Jesus would respond and he'd definitely include you in the gang (even if its because being close to him is the best way to see who he is ).

larryone

Wow.
There's something you dont see every day...
A discussion here that comes to a reasonable conclusion =0)
I feel like giving somebody a hug.

solas

excelsior wrote:

An Irish Christian who goes to a Catholic church is probably even more capable of getting on with everyone else.

aye, and them too.
either which way I'm sure they would enjoy each others company around a few pints when not talking religion. :P

Wishing you all a blessed Christmas and a peaceful new year.

Asiaprod

Excelsior wrote:

Africa, South-East Asia, South and Central America are all undergoing decades long revivals. Stephen Lungu, who was recently interviewed by Gerry Ryan, has seen days where 20000 people in Malawi have become Christian.

Africa is becoming the destination of choice according to todays Telegraph,

Churches in the United States are turning their backs on religious liberalism at home and looking 9,000 miles away to "biblically orthodox" Uganda for a spiritual refuge.
In November, Anglicans at South Riding Church in Fairfax, Virginia, became the latest congregation to break from their roots and join the Church of Uganda instead. A dozen others have done the same, a symptom of religious conservatives' deep discomfort over scriptural revisionism and the Church's growing acceptance of homosexuality. It is a further sign of the widening schisms threatening the Anglican communion and comes as reforms implemented last week allow homosexuals in Britain to get "married".
The trend to turn to Africa was started by three Californian churches outraged that their leader, the Rev J Jon Bruno, the Bishop of Los Angeles, supported the ordination of the homosexual canon Gene Robinson and reportedly said that Jesus did not rise from the dead. These traditionalist congregations felt betrayed and trapped, says the Rev Dr Alison Barfoot, originally from Kansas and now working with Uganda's most senior clergyman, Archbishop Henry Orombi.
"They were looking to their leaders for guidance and were hearing things like Jesus is not the only path to salvation, that anyone can write scripture, that the resurrection was not a fact," she said from the shaded veranda at the Archbishop's palace, high on a hillside in a Kampala suburb."Then they look to Uganda and see that there is the spiritual vitality here that they long for, where they can have confidence to express the view that God is a reality, not an intellectual construct."Believers in the West see religion being rationalised, psychologised and demystified. Here they feel that weight lifted from their shoulders and they can breathe easier."
The first three churches to break away, St James in Newport Beach, All Saints' in Long Beach and St David's in North Hollywood, chose to link with the Diocese of Luweero, 60 miles north of Kampala, after long correspondence with its Archbishop, the Rt Rev Evans Kisekka.
The Rev Barfoot says members of the US congregations regularly visit for spiritual rejuvenation. Sermons are compared by e-mail and several priests and deacons have been ordained at St Mark's. The cathedral's renovation is being part-funded from across the Atlantic. The Ugandan churches' magnetic pull on American Christians is, officials say, due to packed pews, booming congregations and a faithful interpretation of the Bible rather than its opposition to homosexuality. Uganda has 9.2 million practising Anglicans, compared to fewer than one million in British churches on Sundays. Nigeria, where Christianity is growing fastest worldwide, has 17 million. "It is not only about sexuality," says the Rev Andrew Quill, the son of a priest from Ulster, who has lived in Luweero for six years with his wife and three children. "That is a symptom, and cannot be ignored, but this is equally about wholesale rewriting of Biblical facts, of breaking Articles of the Bible. "That is what is driving people away and it will continue to happen until some sense returns to the way their supposed church leaders are thinking."

robindch

> according to todays Telegraph,

The UK's Daily Telegraph?

Congregations from the USA breaking away and joining African ones is a new one on me -- thanks for the article. But there's nothing new about American religious businessmen going to Africa to increase their market base, even if things don't always go quite to plan:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4619733.stm

"Four million dollars down the drain!" -- what a delicious quote from "Pastor" Benny Hinn! :rolleyes:

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

>
The UK's Daily Telegraph?

The very one

wolfsbane

robindch said:

American religious businessmen

Excellent secular designation for these types of charlatan. Jesus described them: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:15-23%20;&version=50;

Terry

i just want to start by saying that i am not a religious person. i do not believe in any higher being in any form. i do however have a passing interest in peoples spiritual belief, the teachings of the bible and the misinterpretation of the bible by those who are either insane or want to make a few quid.

as far as i'm concerned, the greatest line in the bible is "judge not lest ye be judged" and christians seem to forget this.

forget about christianity being split in three. it's already been split into 300 different sects and each of them seems to look down on all the others. the way i see it is that each sect worships christ, but they are forgetting one important thing and that is the second commandment. "You shall have no other gods besides Me...Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."

back to the fundaMENTALISTS.
i came across this site recently and it shocked me in its total disregard of catholicism, which is basically the basis of all christianity. http://christiananswers.net/menu-ar1.html#catholicism

note how they have a section on sexual abuse in the catholic church, as if catholics are the only ones who abuse kids.

wolfsbane

julep said:

back to the fundaMENTALISTS.
i came across this site recently and it shocked me in its total disregard of catholicism, which is basically the basis of all christianity.

That view is not only held by Fundamentalists - it is the historic Protestant view. Check out any of the creeds or confessions of Faith of the Reformed Churches, including Anglicanism and Methodism. Many of their present day members would no longer hold to these foundation documents of their church, but you will find that these folk generally have abandoned all the basic doctrines of Christianity, including those held in common with the Roman Catholic Church.

I would of course challenge your assertion that the Roman Catholicism is the basis of all christianity. Reformed folk like myself hold that it has greatly departed from the New Testament teaching, importing its own doctrines instead. We are not saying that all Roman Catholics are not Christians, just that the religion itself is not. There are within it those who hold to the true faith. Indeed, the Reformation began within the Roman Church when priests and monks could no longer reconcile the Biblical truths they had found with the teaching and practices around them. So today there are priests, nuns and ordinary members of that church who are Christian in the Biblical sense of the word. Most Catholics I have met, like most Protestants, are not Christians despite their claim to the title. They are either trusting in their church or in their good works to get them to heaven, when they need to be trusting in Christ alone.

Yes, you are right to say corruption is not confined to the Roman Catholic Church. Anywhere where sinners go sin will be found. So much of it is found in Rome because of its power-structures and enforced celebacy.

Terry

wolfsbane wrote:

That view is not only held by Fundamentalists - it is the historic Protestant view. Check out any of the creeds or confessions of Faith of the Reformed Churches, including Anglicanism and Methodism. Many of their present day members would no longer hold to these foundation documents of their church, but you will find that these folk generally have abandoned all the basic doctrines of Christianity, including those held in common with the Roman Catholic Church.

i was just referring to the extreme hatred of catholicism and not the general dislike of papal doctrine.

wolfsbane wrote:

I would of course challenge your assertion that the Roman Catholicism is the basis of all christianity. Reformed folk like myself hold that it has greatly departed from the New Testament teaching, importing its own doctrines instead. We are not saying that all Roman Catholics are not Christians, just that the religion itself is not. There are within it those who hold to the true faith. Indeed, the Reformation began within the Roman Church when priests and monks could no longer reconcile the Biblical truths they had found with the teaching and practices around them. So today there are priests, nuns and ordinary members of that church who are Christian in the Biblical sense of the word. Most Catholics I have met, like most Protestants, are not Christians despite their claim to the title. They are either trusting in their church or in their good works to get them to heaven, when they need to be trusting in Christ alone.

i think you picked me up wrong, although i do have a difficulty getting my point across. i was just saying that catholicism is the only christian section that recognises the pope as god's emissary on earth, as was the case within all of chrisendom in the beginning.

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, you are right to say corruption is not confined to the Roman Catholic Church. Anywhere where sinners go sin will be found. So much of it is found in Rome because of its power-structures and enforced celebacy.

those "send me your money" preachers crack me up, but not as much as the people who actually do send the money.
i have a big problem with money being spend on elaborately ornate houses of worship by any religion, when that money could be spent helping the less fortunate that christian churches preach so much about helping. but that's another conversation for another day.

Victor

Excelsior wrote:

Is Christianity splitting in 3?

Hasn't it been split in 3 or more for a long time?

Is there any hope that an Anglican from Nigeria, a Catholic from Vancouver and a Reformed Charismatic from Stockholm could get along?

I'm sure they can, but how much do we want them to get on? What worries me is the "You are not Christian enough? I condemn thee" attitude that is very loud in some parts.

Are people threatened by the African/South American model?

Can you define what you mean by "model"? Do you mean churches with Victorian era morality or something different?

What do people think of the reports of millions converting in China?

It ususally worries me when millions of people suddenly do something the didn't previously. No offence, but humans are intelligent, people are stupid.

Basically, why is this forum not interested in global Christianity?

Is it an imperative that this board concern itself when there are other places for such discussion or do you mean it in a vaguely hipply-like "we are all the same" way. boards.ie is an Irish site, Irish-specific and Irish-slanted issues are to the fore. Commuting / Transport discusses primarily Irish transport with other little bits added. I imagine Christianity is similar.

Excelsior wrote:

Should the Jews of 1930s loved their enemies?

Yes. But not only should the Nazis have loved the Jews (or at least not want to go on a homocidal rampage against them), Jesus did not suggest that people be stupid and let themselves be taken advantage of.

He also said love the children. If we allow children be murdered (i.e. if the Jews were completely passive and allowed the Nazis murder their children*)

wolfsbane wrote:

They are either trusting in their church or in their good works to get them to heaven, when they need to be trusting in Christ alone.

I can imagine Jesus saying "Help me here, do something good in your life". Faith is important, but so is how we lead or lives. one draws of the other.

* Of course the Jews were systematicly disempowered, it wasn't so much that Jews allowed Nazis kill Jews as the Jews were defenceless against the on-slaught.

wolfsbane

julep said:

i was just referring to the extreme hatred of catholicism and not the general dislike of papal doctrine.

I don't have a problem with either. Extreme error needs to be extremely hated. But I'm glad you did not say they hated Catholics - that would be an entirely different matter.

i was just saying that catholicism is the only christian section that recognises the pope as god's emissary on earth, as was the case within all of chrisendom in the beginning.

As you point out, only the Catholics believe such a thing. The first claims of the bishop of Rome to supremacy over his fellow bishops was not received well. I think that was in the mid-100's. But even in the New Testament times, there was no pope. There were the apostles, who all taught with infallible authority. Not that they were sinless in their practice - just in their teaching. When Peter 'played the hypocrite', Paul publically rebuked him.

When the apostles died, they left behind the deposit of faith in the New Testament Scriptures. The Roman Catholic Church claims the succeeding bishops of Rome inherited apostolic infallibility, but that is not what the Scriptures teach. Rome however claims its teaching is on a par with Scripture, so we are all obliged to believe what the pope tells us to, never mind what we plainly see in Scripture.

Let me ask, does the history of the popes suggest their claim to be God's emmissary on earth likely to be true or likely to be an outrageous grasp for power? Also, does the history of the Roman Catholic Church suggest it to be the only true Christian church ( the rest of us 'are not Churches in the proper sense') - or does it suggest it has no relationship to the Church pictured in the New Testament?

those "send me your money" preachers crack me up, but not as much as the people who actually do send the money.

Yes, they are wolves indeed. Many of the donators deserve all they get (or rather get fleeced off) since their object is to bribe God into giving them 100x more back; but some sincere folk are just desperate for healing or so gullible to think these men are holy.

i have a big problem with money being spend on elaborately ornate houses of worship by any religion, when that money could be spent helping the less fortunate that christian churches preach so much about helping.

Amen to that. Where is the 'silver and gold have I none' of the apostles?

wolfsbane

Victor said:

I can imagine Jesus saying "Help me here, do something good in your life". Faith is important, but so is how we lead or lives. one draws of the other.

Christ needs no help in atoning for our sins. But you are perfectly right about righteous living. In fact Christ says, 'If you love me, keep my commmandments'. The apostles teach Christians that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, 13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works. Titus 2:12b-14.

Lack of love for our fellowman is an indication that our profession of faith is merely a pretence.

The Reformers put it this way: we are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves never remains alone. Good works always follow on from true faith.

Terry

victor wrote:

I can imagine Jesus saying "Help me here, do something good in your life". Faith is important, but so is how we lead or lives. one draws of the other.

wolfsbane wrote:

Christ needs no help in atoning for our sins. But you are perfectly right about righteous living. In fact Christ says, 'If you love me, keep my commmandments'. The apostles teach Christians that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, 13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works. Titus 2:12b-14.

Lack of love for our fellowman is an indication that our profession of faith is merely a pretence.

The Reformers put it this way: we are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves never remains alone. Good works always follow on from true faith.

god helps those who help themselves.