'Bible believing' church communities and their differences

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I’ve found the best defense for catholic reliance on both scripture and tradition is the very last verse in the Gospel of John

.

Thank you, I will keep this in mind.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I asked her in this situation did she think they would go to Heaven or Hell? She said given the evil in their soul they were surely go to hell. But when I brought up that they had accepted Jesus when they were 18, she said they obviously hadn’t because we are saved through our acceptance and that can never be lost. If one were destined for hell they could never have been saved in the first place.

This sounds like what my friend believes. She believes she can’t sin because she accepted Jesus in her heart + he is her personal lord and saviour and all that. So that is her safeguard against sin. I think she also believs that he now literally lives in her so whatever she does it’s not really her, but Jesus. For example, she is involved in charity work and says that peeople she and her friends help must only thank God, because their human efforts are not important. I get what she’s saying (God being the essential good and the source of all good we people do) but I think her community has twisted this to a high degree. I wonder what will happen when she does fall into sin and recognises that (even if it is venial). Will that mean she was not saved in the first place? Will she need to be baptised again? Where does it end? This principle of backtracking sounds absolutely nutty.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

“Bible-believing” means “I believe in my personal interpretation of the Bible, or the interpretation of the person to whom I yield authority – i.e., the founder of my denomination.” Never mind that conflicting and competing Protestant interpretations number in the thousands.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

“Bible-believing” means “I believe in my personal interpretation of the Bible, or the interpretation of the person to whom I yield authority – i.e., the founder of my denomination.” Never mind that conflicting and competing Protestant interpretations number in the thousands.

I can’t understand how people can believe this. Sure, it is convenient and attractive to be right, but seriously. If her tiny community has it right together with a few other tiny communities they are related to, and other Christians are wrong, and all the history of the church is obviously a mistake - wouldn’t that be just a bit suspicious? I guess it is all obivous to me from my Catholic perspective

 

[CopticChristian]

This sounds like what my friend believes. She believes she can’t sin because she accepted Jesus in her heart + he is her personal lord and saviour and all that. So that is her safeguard against sin. I think she also believs that he now literally lives in her so whatever she does it’s not really her, but Jesus. For example, she is involved in charity work and says that peeople she and her friends help must only thank God, because their human efforts are not important. I get what she’s saying (God being the essential good and the source of all good we people do) but I think her community has twisted this to a high degree. I wonder what will happen when she does fall into sin and recognises that (even if it is venial). Will that mean she was not saved in the first place? Will she need to be baptised again? Where does it end? This principle of backtracking sounds absolutely nutty.

Contra,

Evangelicals and Non-denominationals tend to investigate and become athiest since if they were the only ones that have the truth and everyone else is wrong…then when the discover the truth about the origin of this group where can they go. The other route is to discover the historical evolution of Protestant thought and many trace their way back, some stopping along the way and some finally find their way back to the origin of that thought.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Contra,

Evangelicals and Non-denominationals tend to investigate and become athiest since if they were the only ones that have the truth and everyone else is wrong…then when the discover the truth about the origin of this group where can they go. The other route is to discover the historical evolution of Protestant thought and many trace their way back, some stopping along the way and some finally find their way back to the origin of that thought.

I will keep her in my prayers.

 

[Porknpie]

Remember the history of the Lutheran church includes 1500 years of being happliy Catholic. Up until the reformation, your history is my history. We also hope for a reconciliation with the Catholic church in God’s time as well.

In the time after the Reformation, I think we’ve only had one other dogmatic question with the Catholic church, and that’s with Papal Infallibly. Oddly enough, we don’t disagree with what the Pope has said “ex cathedra” - in fact I personally find the pronouncements add to my faith.

If the Lutheran church was happy for 1500 years then why let Luther change 1500 years of Church teaching? He changed the bible by displacing books saying they were not inspired, removed 5 out of 7 sacraments, changed the believe in the Eucharist from transubstantiation, created salvation through faith alone and sola scripture and rejected the Papacy.

Now, to his credit, he honored Mary by saying she was the Mother of God and she was a perpetual virgin. Plus, he said that those strong in faith could pray the Hail Mary. He also was strongly against birth control. I wish the current Lutheran churches recognized the love he had for Mary and the view he had of birth control. Do you think he got his theology here from the bible or from church tradition? If from the bible, why do other bible churches not have the same understanding of scripture?

 

[po18guy]

Contra,

Dont forget that St Paul began his ministry in the same manner. No one appointed him. (Gal 1.1) S not being part of a known denomination does not necessarily disqualify her pastor.

Rob

Really? No one?
Maybe this thread will be educational for you too. God bless.

Contra,

Paul plainly says no man appointed him in Gal 1.1. Any info refuting him on that?

Rob

Rob, if you are still reading, crack that old “supreme authority” open and take a fresh look at Acts 8, 9 and 19, as well as 1 Corinthians 11.

Acts 9:15

15 And the Lord said to him (Ananias): Go thy way; for this man (Paul) is to me a vessel of election, to carry my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.

1 Corinthians 11:23-27

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread.
24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me.
25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

The LORD appointed him, Rob!

You know who appointed themselves, by their own authority? Simon the sorcerer and the seven sons of Sceva. Let’s see how they did:

Acts 8:18-24

18 And when Simon (the sorcerer) saw, that by the imposition of the hands of the apostles, the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
19 Saying: Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I shall lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said to him:
20 Keep thy money to thyself, to perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
21 Thou hast no part nor lot in this matter. For thy heart is not right in the sight of God.
22 Do penance therefore for this thy wickedness; and pray to God, that perhaps this thought of thy heart may be forgiven thee.
23 For I see thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bonds of iniquity.
24 Then Simon answering, said: Pray you for me to the Lord, that none of these things which you have spoken may come upon me.

How about those seven sons who sent themselves?

Acts 19:13-16

13 Now some also of the Jewish exorcists who went about, attempted to invoke over them that had evil spirits, the name of the Lord Jesus, saying: I conjure you by Jesus, whom Paul preacheth.
14 And there were certain men, seven sons of Sceva, a Jew, a chief priest, that did this.
15 But the wicked spirit, answering, said to them: Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?
16 And the man in whom the wicked spirit was, leaping upon them, and mastering them both, prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.

True ministers were chosen by God and sent by Him, or sent by them to whom God gave the Apostolic authority. Peter speaks of the motivations of those who send themselves.

 

[mikelionheart]

Remember the history of the Lutheran church includes 1500 years of being happliy Catholic. Up until the reformation, your history is my history. We also hope for a reconciliation with the Catholic church in God’s time as well.

In the time after the Reformation, I think we’ve only had one other dogmatic question with the Catholic church, and that’s with Papal Infallibly. Oddly enough, we don’t disagree with what the Pope has said “ex cathedra” - in fact I personally find the pronouncements add to my faith.

Sorry Ben but that does not wash.

The Lutheran church is 500 years old.

 

[CopticChristian]

I will keep her in my prayers.

Contra,

I did not forget. Time slipped away.

I have run into too many “I used to be Catholic” and the reason is vast and varied….too many end up in these Bible believing Churches when in fact the OHCAC is Bible producing and believing…

I have attended too many potlucks, services, bible studies, met with pastors, befriended pastors and as long as you are Catholic…you are just another target for conversion. This is the first thing to understand.

Every Bible believing church has a statement of faith. Ask your friend if her church has a website, if so there will be the statement of faith. If not, ask her if you could see a copy of the statement of faith. You will find…we believe…concerning Scripture=Sola Scriptura, you will find we believe….concerning salvation=Sola Fide and then something about the church and if you see ….Premillinial return then understand that dispensationalism is part of her church.

Now, discussions could be like…to decide to believe in one God you have to choose…Judaism, Islam or Christianity…get an agreement because there is no other choice…it is important to get a Yes and understanding that this is a Choice.

Next, the next decision is if you want to be Christian the choices are Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant. Again there are no other choices…

The dialogue usually takes a side turn…I am not Protestant I am just Christian…the question then should be ….let me ask you…Do you believe that the Bible is all you need? Yes…Do you believe you are saved by a profession, asking Christ to be your saviour by Faith alone…Yes…OK, then you are Protestant…refer to the statement of Faith and your understanding of Protestant thought…

Know and read the letter to the Romans. The first thing you will notice is that Paul is writing to Christians as evidenced in Romans 1 and 22. Next note that Paul the first and last time Paul mentions Faith, he says “obedience of Faith”…he never once in the letter says “Faith alone”. It is not a letter to the unsaved, how to get saved, written to fellow believers, it is about “obedient Faith”, Faith in action, and Paul tells them what he is going to say, says it and then tells them what he said. He want them to know about obedient Faith…Know this.

Also note that Paul ends the letter with the word Mystery. This letter is about a mystery. What mystery? The Church. The means by which gentiles are made fellow heirs with Christ.

Point. The letter is written to Christians. Paul is writing about obedience of Faith and the mystery of the Church.

I cannot and never was a letter as to how to get saved, if so why would he write to the saints…they are already saved and if they were unsaved why would he mention obedience of faith as the usaved would say “huh”.

1Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake, 6among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ;

  **7to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints:** Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

25Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the** mystery **which has been kept secret for long ages past, 26but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; 27to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen

 

[loozcannon]

Looz,

Jesus founded a Church as it says in Matthew. Paul through revelation says that the Body of Christ is the Church,the Church is the Bride of Christ, the mystery hidden for all ages, through which the manifold wisdom of God is known, through which the manifold wisdom of God is known, the pillar and foundation of truth…do we hold this belief in common?

CopticChristian,

We as in you and I, absolutely!

What I was simply referring to was maybe an alternative and perhaps talking along the lines of the Apostle’s Creed when it comes to relatives or friends who may be protestant.

That clear it up?

 

[loozcannon]

Looz,

What are you converting to or from? I don’t understand what it is your sister asked?

CopticChristian,

I was raised protestant, and I am converting (though I don’t like that word “converting”) to Catholicism. I’m presently in RCIA.

Basically she got wind I was converting (ugh, really hate that word) and she said she had spoken with a Catholic coworker, and her (VERY misinformed) coworker said Catholics don’t believe Christ died on the cross!

That’s it in a nutshell.

God bless.

 

[Taestron]

I have attended too many potlucks, services, bible studies, met with pastors, befriended pastors and as long as you are Catholic…you are just another target for conversion. This is the first thing to understand.

But I would hope that we as well are your targets for conversion. If you believe that someone does not have the fulness of truth, then to do nothing to try to rectify the situation would be profoundly uncharitable. So I would hope that all sides would do their best to “convert” the other in all love and understanding, of course.

Know and read the letter to the Romans. The first thing you will notice is that Paul is writing to Christians as evidenced in Romans 1 and 22. Next note that Paul the first and last time Paul mentions Faith, he says “obedience of Faith”…he never once in the letter says “Faith alone”. It is not a letter to the unsaved, how to get saved, written to fellow believers, it is about “obedient Faith”, Faith in action, and Paul tells them what he is going to say, says it and then tells them what he said. He want them to know about obedient Faith…Know this.

Also note that Paul ends the letter with the word Mystery. This letter is about a mystery. What mystery? The Church. The means by which gentiles are made fellow heirs with Christ.

Point. The letter is written to Christians. Paul is writing about obedience of Faith and the mystery of the Church.

I cannot and never was a letter as to how to get saved, if so why would he write to the saints…they are already saved and if they were unsaved why would he mention obedience of faith as the usaved would say “huh”.

Well, I believe you are correct; I do not think that Paul would write a letter about the obedience of faith to the unsaved. However, Paul could still write a letter about “how to get saved” if there were problems with Judaizers in the Roman congregation. Thus if the message is “the Judaizers are wrong; faith in Jesus and obedience are the only requirements for salvation,” then it is perfectly fine for Protestants to use the “Roman Road” to lead unbelievers to salvation. Alternatively, if you find the so-called “New Perspective on Paul” convincing, the message of Romans could be “Due to the obedience and faithfulness of Jesus, the Law has been fulfilled and it is now possible for Gentiles to be saved apart from becoming Jews.”

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian,

I was raised protestant, and I am converting (though I don’t like that word “converting”) to Catholicism. I’m presently in RCIA.

Basically she got wind I was converting (ugh, really hate that word) and she said she had spoken with a Catholic coworker, and her (VERY misinformed) coworker said Catholics don’t believe Christ died on the cross!

That’s it in a nutshell.

God bless.

Looz,

Paul wasn’t converted. He was on straight street, blinded, when like scales falling from his eyes he could see. He knew the OT like the back of his hand and his new ability to see was the ability to see the OT in light of the New Covenant. Was he converted. He was once blind and now could see. Seems to me that there is a song like that. Have you converted? No, you just see things differently. Remember “repent for the kingdom of God is at hand”…Repent just means change your mind. You changed your mind and now you like Paul see things differently.

 

[CopticChristian]

But I would hope that we as well are your targets for conversion. If you believe that someone does not have the fulness of truth, then to do nothing to try to rectify the situation would be profoundly uncharitable. So I would hope that all sides would do their best to “convert” the other in all love and understanding, of course.

Well, I believe you are correct; I do not think that Paul would write a letter about the obedience of faith to the unsaved. However, Paul could still write a letter about “how to get saved” if there were problems with Judaizers in the Roman congregation. Thus if the message is “the Judaizers are wrong; faith in Jesus and obedience are the only requirements for salvation,” then it is perfectly fine for Protestants to use the “Roman Road” to lead unbelievers to salvation. Alternatively, if you find the so-called “New Perspective on Paul” convincing, the message of Romans could be “Due to the obedience and faithfulness of Jesus, the Law has been fulfilled and it is now possible for Gentiles to be saved apart from becoming Jews.”

The only reason to go toe to toe in this conversion process is to englighten those that think they have the truth to something they were not aware of…Catholics read the Bible, The Bible is a Catholic Book, and we believe and want to spread the truth of Divine Sonship and want everyone to get in on the action…saved by grace through Faith working in love…If Paul tells us about a Mystery…don’t you want to know what was hidden by God for all ages…what and where is it…through which the manifold wisdom of God is known…

While the non-denominational message is that we don’t have to keep the law because Jesus did it for us is nonsense. for don’t you know…

1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? 3Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7for he who has died is freed from sin.

and this comes long before confessing with your lips and believing with your heart in Chapter 10.

 

[benjohnson]

If the Lutheran church was happy for 1500 years then why let Luther change 1500 years of Church teaching?

The trouble started because we felt that some church teaching was wrong - for one it was telling poor people that they could exchange their money for a share in the “Treasury of Merit.”

He changed the bible by displacing books saying they were not inspired, removed 5 out of 7 sacraments, changed the believe in the Eucharist from transubstantiation, created salvation through faith alone and sola scripture and rejected the Papacy.

Luter did make some poor choices, and I hope that we draw near the Catholic chruch and remedy those.

Lutherans do acknowledge the dogma of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but we reject the doctrine concerning the conversion of the earthly gifts as a philosophical explanation.

I thank you for not saying that Luther removed books from the bible!

He did change their place. A bible is 73 books (if not more for our Eastern friends), not 66!

Now, to his credit, he honored Mary by saying she was the Mother of God and she was a perpetual virgin. Plus, he said that those strong in faith could pray the Hail Mary. He also was strongly against birth control. I wish the current Lutheran churches recognized the love he had for Mary and the view he had of birth control.

I too wish we stayed by our stand on birth control - my church rejects abortions, chemical abortions, hormones, and any other method (like IUDs) that harm viable life. We stress NFP, but sadly we have become a bit too like Onan.

We too love Mary - and I find the Catholic Church’s message on the Assumption worthy of very strong consideration and prayer.

To answer your question:

My impression is Luther was a very intelligent man, but the vast majority of his decisions were him following Catholic teaching and tradition. I view this is a good thing, and look forward to when Lutherans exchange a bit of pride for a closer relationship with the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

 

[Porknpie]

benjohnson:

I too wish we stayed by our stand on birth control - my church rejects abortions, chemical abortions, hormones, and any other method (like IUDs) that harm viable life. We stress NFP, but sadly we have become a bit too like Onan.

We too love Mary - and I find the Catholic Church’s message on the Assumption worthy of very strong consideration and prayer.

Ben, I married into a family of LCMS, the very strong German variety. The inlaws raised my wife to love Christ and I can’t thank them enough. All of them are going to heaven but a few may stop by purgatory along the way. I actually know quite a bit about LCMS but not all. And, clearly, knowing more about Luther than the average Catholic drove me to know my faith better and for that I’m thankful. An area that I’m weak is on the contraceptive pill. Do you have an understanding of why the Lutheran church does not see it as immoral when as a 3rd means of preventing pregnancy it acts as an abortificient in preventing a fertilized cell from implanting? I understand that the LCMS at one time taught all birth control was immoral and changed their teaching (Luther himself condemned birth control as immoral). I know the pill is a bit off topic but I could also ask what changed in the bible to change the teaching to bring it back a bit…?

Peace and thank you for your reply.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Coptic, thank you very much for your reply.

My friend used to claim she was not a protestant, but last time she spoke she kept asking me about whether there are Evangelical Christians here in Malaysia. I told her I’m not familiar with local Protestant communities here. She left it at that. I guess she has recognised that her beliefs actually have a theology behind them. That’s a step I guess.

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic, thank you very much for your reply.

My friend used to claim she was not a protestant, but last time she spoke she kept asking me about whether there are Evangelical Christians here in Malaysia. I told her I’m not familiar with local Protestant communities here. She left it at that. I guess she has recognised that her beliefs actually have a theology behind them. That’s a step I guess.

Contra,

This is good. My experience in being evangelized by Protestants is that the key is to know as much or more of what they believe to be able to dialogue effectively. As you recall this was what Aquinas did. He knew everyone’s argument better than they did as he refuted them. Now you know you are dealing with an Evangelical and here is what you should study.

The EFCA was formed in 1950 from the merger of the Swedish Evangelical Free Church and the Norwegian-Danish Evangelical Free Church Association. These Churches were born out of Lutheran Thought…Here is the statement of Faith…for the Evangelical Free Church in America.

efca.org/about-efca/statement-faith

The Bible

 2. We believe that God has spoken in the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, through the words of human authors. As the verbally inspired Word of God, the Bible is **without error in the original writings,** the complete revelation of His will for salvation, and the **ultimate authority** by which every realm of human knowledge and endeavor should be judged. Therefore, it is to be believed in all that it teaches, obeyed in all that it requires, and trusted in all that it promises.

Sola Scriptura

The Church

1. We believe that the true church comprises all who have been** justified by God’s grace through faith alone in Christ alone.** They are united by the Holy Spirit in the body of Christ, of which He is the Head. The true church is manifest in local churches, whose membership should be composed only of believers. The Lord Jesus mandated two ordinances, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which visibly and tangibly express the gospel. Though they are not the means of salvation, when celebrated by the church in genuine faith, these ordinances confirm and nourish the believer.

**
Sola Fide**

**
Christ’s Return**

1. We believe in the personal, bodily and premillennial return of our Lord Jesus Christ. The coming of Christ, at a time known only to God, demands constant expectancy and, as our blessed hope, motivates the believer to godly living, sacrificial service and energetic mission.

Dispensationalism

So now you should study the roots of the Evangelical Free Church and realize that you can trace its history back to Luther…once you get there…she has to realize that this belief came from the OHCAC…

Next you can point out that Protestanism is based on the Sola as outlined…and you should investigate the roots of Dispensationalism as they were spawned by the Irish Protestant Church, ala John Nelson Darby…and recognize that Israel is not the Israel of the Bible…it is land…because in Exodus…19:6…you will read…

5‘Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine;** 6and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’** These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel.”

The only Israel that satisfies this is the OHCAC…a nation of priests…Israel in the OT is not land it is people…and know that the dispensatioanlists want to get all the Jews back to Israel to be anhiliated so that Jesus can return…

You are on your way…more when you ask…Understand that the biggest and most important dialoging point with this group having spoken to many is “personal relationship with Christ”…you can speak about all the other stuff and they will push it to the background and go back to this point of reference…there is actually a thread here on the CAF that you should look at about personal relationship…

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Wow! That’s a lot of good stuff for me to read here Coptic C.

So you were evangelised by protestans but were never a protestant yourself? Good for you, for sticking to the truth.

I also wonder if there is much point in discussing these things with her. She has been with her community for the last 10 years and is very passionate about her faith. I’m sure she wouldn’t be open to anything I say. She doesn’t understand Catholicism at all. Her problem with the mass, for example, was that is was just automatic, robotic prayer that doesn’t flow from the heart. I guess having a personal relationship with Jesus suited her emotional needs well. But I now feel like it is time for me to suggest things, to ask questions, to ask her to explain to me why she believes what she believes. I don’t want a full blown boxing match since I don’t want to lose a friend. Maybe she would see my questions as an opportunity to evangelise me (again) and in this way I can make her think about her beliefs from a different perspective. If you have any advice on what questions to ask and what not to say, I would appreciate it.