Can We All Agree We Are One

[CMatt25]

Two things I think you are misunderstanding here. Firstly, of course there are weeds in the Church. The fact that it has a flawed human side ensures that it does. However, the Church isn’t just human, it is also divine because it is the Body of Christ.

Let me put it this way, when Paul persecuted the Christians and was on his way to Damascus to do more of the same, Christ appeared to him and asked him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” Christ didn’t say, “Why do you persecute my flawed human followers”, but “me.” He identified himself completely with his Church.

Naturally, those who claim Christ and are following him to the best of their abilities according to what they know (or rather think they know) have Christ. But, they do not have the fullness of Christ. Many of them do quite a lot with what they have, so much so they often put Catholics to shame, however, the Church has the fullness of Christ in its teachings, sacraments, and spirituality. And no one could ask for more than that.

Della, our faiths merge, unite, in agreement on the divinity of Christ in His body and within His body of believers, there is Christ. What defines fullness we may not be there yet. But it’s a start. God bless!

 

[Della]

Della, our faiths merge, unite, in agreement on the divinity of Christ in His body and within His body of believers, there is Christ. What defines fullness we may not be there yet. But it’s a start. God bless!

You still don’t understand, I’m afraid. The fullness isn’t everything one can know about God. The fullness is everything Christ wanted us to know. In that the Church has the fullness of the truth. It doesn’t claim to have anything else. Other faith communities don’t have that.

Just because others have some knowledge of Christ and its individuals may be saved doesn’t mean their faith communities have the fullness of what Christ wanted us to know and to have. It’s a matter of degree, and in some cases a matter of getting theology quite wrong.

You don’t seem able to see the difference between personal holiness, which is available to anyone who uses the graces God gave them and their faith communities not having the fullness of truth that Christ intended us to have. There is a big difference, and it makes a big difference in many people’s lives–affecting many people’s very salvation.

 

[joe370]

Matt, what was your answer to the following question:

So, it does not matter which church we belong to; is that what you are saying? Doctrinal truth is unimportant, and all that matters is that we are united as one because we all have faith that Jesus is our one and only savior? In other words, it’s OK to compromise on doctrinal truth for the sake of unity; ignoring the differences (doctrinally speaking) - that set us apart, again in the name of unity?

You said:

Joe, perhaps your sister believes Matt 3:11 is saying baptism with water does not take precedence over baptism with the Holy Spirit?

Nope, that’s not it. Water baptism is unnecessary according to her Pastor.

Or because the thief was saved there may be an exception?

According to her church teachers, nobody other than Jesus Christ is currently in Heaven. That only happens, (according to her church) - once Jesus returns, but first He will set up His kingdom here in this world for a thousand years.

Maybe she reasons Christ had not died yet at the Last Supper?

No, she believes that. Is there a church that reasons Christ had not died yet at the Last Supper?

Maybe she believes everythng in the Bible is not literal.

The polar opposite.

That eat my body and discern meant believe in me and in what I did for you?

That is exactly what she thinks, those words mean. In other words, Jesus Christ, in John 6, let many followers reject and walk away ("From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him) - from the words: “believe in me and in what I did for you” which is the correct interpretation of John 6, Matthew, Luke and Mark and Paul? Is this what your church teaches?

That Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father and His physical body will return when he comes again?

Yup.

Maybe she believes Christ was not about rules and rituals?

Nope. Her church is full of rules and rituals. Every church in the world today has rules and established forms of liturgical ceremony.

But whatever she believes is her faith. Just has you and I have our faith. All 3 a faith in Christ. Peace to you as well my friend and to your sister in Christ.

So again, it’s OK to compromise on doctrinal truth for the sake of unity? It’s OK for one church to believe that John 6 is really saying: “believe in me and in what I did for you,” and for others to believe that Jesus really meant what He said when He said to the grumbling Jews who were arguing sharply among themselves saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat:”

• 53Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Matt, if their forefathers literally ate the manna in the desert, then logically speaking, Jesus wants us also to literally eat this bread that came down from heaven 2000 years ago? The word eat was/is to be accomplished in both cases? The word eat should mean the same thing in both scenarios - right?

Jesus said, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you, which tells me that the truth regarding this doctrine should never be comprised for the sake of unity - wouldn’t you agree, if in fact my sister is wrong, and Jesus’ church of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th…century was right?

 

[CMatt25]

Hi Joe, well my idea was just to show how your sister is united with you and I in Christ even though she and you and I may differ on some points. Perhaps her pastor teaches Matt 3:11 suggests baptism by the Holy Spirit rather than by water. And the thief will get to heaven when Christ raises the righteous up after He returns. 1 Thess 4 gives an account which her church may suggest shows 1 resurrection. I have a friend whose church teaches this as well. There are churches which say because Christ had not been crucified and died yet at the Last Supper then how could the Apostles have been physically eating His body.

As to what I believe in regard to your question, I may still be a work in progress. But I was reading Scripture today when Paul was speaking about divisions even then. In 1Cor 4 where he says it is not about following Paul or following Peter but following Christ. And in 1Cor 10:17 and 12:12 where he talks about how all of us, though many, are one body sharing Christ, many parts making up the body of Christ.

I totally get what you are saying about doctrinal differences. But I am confident Christ understands how we each have arrived where we are on our walks with Him. So sometimes I do wonder if He doesn’t just want us all to try more love, less judging. De-emphasizing our differences and concentrating on what we all can unite around. The Essential. And one thing I do know is all Christians agree on the Essential. Our Lord and Savior Himself Christ our King.

Hope that helps. Peace and God bless!

 

[Mighty_Pawn]

I agree. We ARE one in Christ. You love him and serve him the best way you understand. I love him and serve him the best way I understand.

I’m going to use the example of a family with Jesus as the Dad.

Now Jesus had a son (the church). We’ll say it’s the CC. Later, the son had kids of his own but out of wedlock. But these little ones, even though being illegitimate loved their grandpa Jesus just as much as the son did and were accepted by him.

The son said that grandpa had told him that they should all write him a letter every Wednesday to say hi. The son had been pretty scrict through the years on how Grandpa was to be treated and respected. But by writing to grandpa and getting letters back from him some of the kids came back saying that grandpa had said to write to him ANY day of the week.

So the son’s kids and the son had a falling out about what day they were to write to grandpa. They bickered back and forth about what the right day was. They even started arguing about a bunch of other stuff but the cool thing is they all KEPT writing Grandpa letters.

Grandpa heard about this aguring and thought to himself, "If all my kids spent as much time writing to me and reading the letters I write back as they do arguing with each other about what I supposedly said, imagine what a proud grandpa I could be!

What I’m just saying is that they might not agree on ANYTHING other then serving Jesus. But why does the “son” and the “kids” serve(write)? Because as disfunctional as it might be because of sin they are a family that at the end of the day really and truly love their grandpa. Are they an imperfect family? no question at all! But they are still ONE family.

 

[kh41507]

I beleive the NT is pretty clear in stating that we are ALL one body in Christ. I have read the argument on these forums that there were no other “churches” in early christianity, but I beleive that is grossly misunderstood. The council of the apostles that we are introduced to in Acts basically only agreed on a few key issues, as the clear understanding from scripture is that is there is divisions among the churches, do not quarrel amongst yourselves, as we are all baptized in Christ, not into denominations (see 1Corinthians). The apostles appears to have begged and prayed for unity among the churches that they had established, and were willing to have differences in the churches as long as they did not interfere with the teachings of Christ. If you’re entire viewpoint on Christianity is that Peter would lead the only true church, please read 1 Corinthians 1:11. Jesus accepted Jew, Gentile, Samaritan (who the culture viewed as unclean “mixed breed” Jews, pagans, anyone who was willing to accept him as Lord and Savior. Can we not as Christians at the very minimum agree to disagree on doctrinal issues and unite in Spirit with God? Jesus warned us that a house divided by itself cannot stand, and I do not doubt that his prayers in the Gospel of John for church unity was in recognition that human nature would take us on this path of destructive criticism towards eachother. BTW, I am glad to atleast see sites like this one that opens up the dialogues for every day Christians to communicate with eachother respectfully and without judgement.

 

[CMatt25]

 

[Della]

I beleive the NT is pretty clear in stating that we are ALL one body in Christ. I have read the argument on these forums that there were no other “churches” in early christianity, but I beleive that is grossly misunderstood. The council of the apostles that we are introduced to in Acts basically only agreed on a few key issues, as the clear understanding from scripture is that is there is divisions among the churches, do not quarrel amongst yourselves, as we are all baptized in Christ, not into denominations (see 1Corinthians). The apostles appears to have begged and prayed for unity among the churches that they had established, and were willing to have differences in the churches as long as they did not interfere with the teachings of Christ. If you’re entire viewpoint on Christianity is that Peter would lead the only true church, please read 1 Corinthians 1:11. Jesus accepted Jew, Gentile, Samaritan (who the culture viewed as unclean “mixed breed” Jews, pagans, anyone who was willing to accept him as Lord and Savior. Can we not as Christians at the very minimum agree to disagree on doctrinal issues and unite in Spirit with God? Jesus warned us that a house divided by itself cannot stand, and I do not doubt that his prayers in the Gospel of John for church unity was in recognition that human nature would take us on this path of destructive criticism towards eachother. BTW, I am glad to atleast see sites like this one that opens up the dialogues for every day Christians to communicate with eachother respectfully and without judgement.

Sorry, no here. The first Christians were united in more than a few things. They were united in the teachings of Christ the Apostles taught them. That some weren’t was an aberration, not something to be cited as a reason why modern day Christians can all do their own thing and still pretend we’re all the same.

And what does following Peter have to do with Gentiles and Jews being equally welcome? Do you think Peter didn’t know this? Re-read Acts 10:34-35 “And Peter opened his mouth and said: ‘Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.’” We are all supposed to be one under Christ who gave his authority to teach in his name to Peter and the Apostles, not to all and sundry.

When Protestants give up this strange idea that somehow they are just another branch of Christianity, then we’ll all be one again. You cited Jesus’ prayer that we all be one. Paul wrote that there is one faith and one baptism. There is one, and only one, Church. It was founded by Christ and based on Peter and the Apostles. What you belong to is an ecclesial community that has some of the teachings of Christ but not the sacraments he established nor the fullness of truth he gave us because these things were rejected after the Reformation. No one thought the Church meant separate bodies all following their own interpretation of the Bible before that. No one.

So no, we are not all the same thing. It’s a great pity, when our separated brethren come home again we will be one family as we ought to be.

 

[kh41507]

I beleive you are again ASSUMING things about early christianity. If they all agreed on every issue, don’t you beleive when the apostles went to the holy city to discuss issues arising in the church, they would have made more than these commands. “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials : 29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication ; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.” These proclamations were issued to solve divisions in the church. This passage proves that that apostles had no intent on establishing a strict rule set on the christian churches. Paul himself called these, and only these, essential actions that the churches must take. Anything more than is in the bible is simply a matter of opinion of man, which has shown throughout history to be false. To say that there was only one strict uniformed church that share ALL of the same beliefs is ridiculous to say the least. The apostles seemed very aware that there would be differences in opinion on things, and only sought to establish basic parameters for worship and belief and not to discourage their brethren. If you continue to assume the domineering opinion “we are the only true church”, then there is absolutely no point in having a debate because you have already proclaimed your beliefs flawless. Paul made it clear that he respected the views of his brethren throughout his letters, and only seeked to stop the clear and precise teachings of the churches that were not conforming to the teachings of Christ, to all other matters he strictly told us to agree to disagree. Simply because you have been told and believe that catholicism is the only true belief has no bearing on Christs wishes that we all consider eachother brothers in Christ. Jesus prayed for unity for ALL of us, not just catholics. It is also very clear that the early churches identified themselves with the apostles in which they were founded, so if there was no disagreement between apostles, would they really feel the need to claim one apostle over another? Common sense would assume that these apostles shared different beliefs, and scripture supports this. The bible said the pharisees of the (christian) sect believed all must be circumcised, other church leaders disagreed. Some early christian churches were said to have upheld circumcision, others did not. That is a clear and distinctive difference in churches. But they were accepted because they all shared the basic and true principals of christianity. Peter stated “And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.” Peter did not say, God only welcomes those that agree with everything I believe, he said that the other churches that have their own beleifs, but through the “Holy Spirit they are cleansed”

 

[Della]

I’m not going to argue with you about your assumptions, dear friend. No one simply told me that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded, I looked that up for myself in real history books, not ones put out by those who want to believe the things you have cited. I read plenty of those, too. I earned a B. A. in Bible and religious education from an Assemblies of God Bible college, so I know what I’m talking about.

I am a convert to the Catholic Church who used to have the same sort of ideas about the early Church you do, so I know exactly where you are coming from, why you are there and what is keeping you there. It’s not a bad place to be, where you are, but it’s not the best place to be, either.

I found the best place, not because I’m so brilliant, but because I couldn’t settle for anything less that the truth no matter how unsettling it might be. It was truth that led me into the Catholic Church, kicking and screaming, I have to admit, but once I was here everything fell into place and here I’ll stay, in the arms of the Church Christ founded.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I beleive the NT is pretty clear in stating that we are ALL one body in Christ. I have read the argument on these forums that there were no other “churches” in early christianity, but I beleive that is grossly misunderstood. The council of the apostles that we are introduced to in Acts basically only agreed on a few key issues, as the clear understanding from scripture is that is there is divisions among the churches, do not quarrel amongst yourselves, as we are all baptized in Christ, not into denominations (see 1Corinthians). The apostles appears to have begged and prayed for unity among the churches that they had established, and were willing to have differences in the churches as long as they did not interfere with the teachings of Christ. If you’re entire viewpoint on Christianity is that Peter would lead the only true church, please read 1 Corinthians 1:11. Jesus accepted Jew, Gentile, Samaritan (who the culture viewed as unclean “mixed breed” Jews, pagans, anyone who was willing to accept him as Lord and Savior. Can we not as Christians at the very minimum agree to disagree on doctrinal issues and unite in Spirit with God? Jesus warned us that a house divided by itself cannot stand, and I do not doubt that his prayers in the Gospel of John for church unity was in recognition that human nature would take us on this path of destructive criticism towards eachother. BTW, I am glad to atleast see sites like this one that opens up the dialogues for every day Christians to communicate with eachother respectfully and without judgement.

can you show us in the Bible where one Apostle tought one thing and the other Apostle tougth something contrary?

**Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. AD 107) wrote in his “Letter to the Smyrnaeans” 8.1:

“You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Nor is it permitted without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate the agape; but whatever he approve, this too is pleasing to God, so that whatever is done will be secure and valid.”**

 

[wisdomseeker]

I’m not going to argue with you about your assumptions, dear friend. No one simply told me that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded, I looked that up for myself in real history books, not ones put out by those who want to believe the things you have cited. I read plenty of those, too. I earned a B. A. in Bible and religious education from an Assemblies of God Bible college, so I know what I’m talking about.

I am a convert to the Catholic Church who used to have the same sort of ideas about the early Church you do, so I know exactly where you are coming from, why you are there and what is keeping you there. It’s not a bad place to be, where you are, but it’s not the best place to be, either.

I found the best place, not because I’m so brilliant, but because I couldn’t settle for anything less that the truth no matter how unsettling it might be. It was truth that led me into the Catholic Church, kicking and screaming, I have to admit, but once I was here everything fell into place and here I’ll stay, in the arms of the Church Christ founded.

 

[kh41507]

There is nothing “keeping me here” other than the truth as God has given it to me. I have no alterior motives, am not a member of any anti-catholic church as you seem to be assuming. We have no knowledge that God has not given us, and I see no history books respected by biblical scholars (other than those associated with churches with alterior motives to prove their agenda) that state that early christianity was united under a one “true church” and that all shared the same beliefs. The fact that gospels and books were written by the early christians that are not included in our bible today logically concludes that different branches of christianity existed as different book were written by different sects, and even your so called “true church” sect would have disagreed on issues but came to the conclusion through the Spirit that these differences should not seperate them. Just for a moment, assume the only book we had was the Bible, and nothing else. Do you truly beleive that even with the spirit of acceptance that Christ had for ALL of his people, he would condone condemnation on your brothers in Christ? And I am so tired of hearing the excuse “we aren’t condemning”. If you are calling yourselves the only true church and that all others are lost sheep, that is condemnation plain and simple. If you refuse to beleive the facts and stick to doctrinal teaching, that is fine, but that ends our debate.

 

[CMatt25]

I’m not going to argue with you about your assumptions, dear friend. No one simply told me that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded, I looked that up for myself in real history books

Hi Della, I don’t think anyone wants to argue or I hope not, Catholics and nons alike. And I think it’s great you have found Him in the CC. Don’t get me wrong. But don’t you still have to put your faith in the books you read? Peace and God bless!

 

[CMatt25]

I agree. We ARE one in Christ. You love him and serve him the best way you understand. I love him and serve him the best way I understand.

I’m going to use the example of a family with Jesus as the Dad.

Now Jesus had a son (the church). We’ll say it’s the CC. Later, the son had kids of his own but out of wedlock. But these little ones, even though being illegitimate loved their grandpa Jesus just as much as the son did and were accepted by him.

The son said that grandpa had told him that they should all write him a letter every Wednesday to say hi. The son had been pretty scrict through the years on how Grandpa was to be treated and respected. But by writing to grandpa and getting letters back from him some of the kids came back saying that grandpa had said to write to him ANY day of the week.

So the son’s kids and the son had a falling out about what day they were to write to grandpa. They bickered back and forth about what the right day was. They even started arguing about a bunch of other stuff but the cool thing is they all KEPT writing Grandpa letters.

Grandpa heard about this aguring and thought to himself, "If all my kids spent as much time writing to me and reading the letters I write back as they do arguing with each other about what I supposedly said, imagine what a proud grandpa I could be!

What I’m just saying is that they might not agree on ANYTHING other then serving Jesus. But why does the “son” and the “kids” serve(write)? Because as disfunctional as it might be because of sin they are a family that at the end of the day really and truly love their grandpa. Are they an imperfect family? no question at all! But they are still ONE family.

Mighty Pawn, that was kinda nice. Do you mind if I use it?

 

[joe370]

Hey Matt…

Hi Joe, well my idea was just to show how your sister is united with you and I in Christ even though she and you and I may differ on some points. Perhaps her pastor teaches Matt 3:11 suggests baptism by the Holy Spirit rather than by water.

If it’s baptism by the Holy Spirit rather than by water, then why the need for the eunuch to be baptized by Philip, with water?

• "Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptised?” Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” (Acts 8:36,37) *

Once baptized with water, a newly born Christian dies to their old life and their old ways, receiving the gift of the holy spirit through the baptism of water, just like the eunuch. Doesn’t that seem biblical to you? If it does, then why should the CC (any church for that matter) - compromise their beliefs regarding baptism by water, for the sake of unity?

When Peter said the following, don’t you think that he would have done exactly what Philip did with the eunuch?

• "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38*

And the thief will get to heaven when Christ raises the righteous up after He returns. 1 Thess 4 gives an account which her church may suggest shows 1 resurrection.

Jesus said to the thief: “TODAY YOU WILL BE WITH ME IN PARADISE.” - Luke 23:43 He made it to heaven even though he was not baptized, which tells me that there are exceptions to the rule, especially if people have never heard of Jesus or His church.

Regarding Thessalonian, the bible never suggests that the souls of those who have died are not in heaven; quite the contrary. Our soul cannot die, can it? It’s the body that dies - right? Mark 12 -

*“Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’[d]? 27He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!” *

The book of Revelations speaks of 2 resurrections. The Bible clearly distinguishes between a first and a second resurrection. You are right though. Many people teach just one resurrection; some teach 3 resurrections. Do you believe this to be a non-essential doctrine? I guess my point is, everyone seems to have a different interpretation about the resurrection, but they can’t all be right. How do we determine who is right?

I have a friend whose church teaches this as well. There are churches which say because Christ had not been crucified and died yet at the Last Supper then how could the Apostles have been physically eating His body.

That would mean that God has limitations? God couldn’t transform the bread and wine into Jesus’ flesh and blood, prior to the shedding of His Blood? I am not questioning you, just your friend. Either he is right or he is wrong, and the bible tells us that this teaching is very important, even critical to our salvation!

Matt, logically speaking, what is in the cup, in the following passage? If Matthew 26 said: he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my wine of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins, wouldn’t you really believe that wine was in the cup, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins, which of course makes absolutely no sense. Jesus did not shed wine - correct?

Matthew 26 - Then* he took a cup**, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.
*

As to what I believe in regard to your question, I may still be a work in progress.

That’s cool! Who isn’t!

But I was reading Scripture today when Paul was speaking about divisions even then. In 1Cor 4 where he says it is not about following Paul or following Peter but following Christ. And in 1Cor 10:17 and 12:12 where he talks about how all of us, though many, are one body sharing Christ, many parts making up the body of Christ.

There has been division in the Mystical Body of Christ in every century (leading up to the Protestant reformation) - no doubt. Just look at all of the heretical/ gnostic movements in the early church. Here are just a few, in my next post…

 

[joe370]

Docetism

Docetism taught that Jesus’ physical body was only an aberration or an illusion. This idea is a product of Gnostic philosophy. The Gnostics believed that matter was evil. Therefore, Jesus could not be God incarnate because a physical body could not be good. Docetism taught that a spiritual Christ entered into the human Jesus at his baptism and left when He was crucified. Jesus could not come in the form of matter since matter was what He came to overcome. This heresy also denies the resurrection because Jesus’ physical body would still be matter.

The CC quashed this doctrinal truth. Did they do the right thing, or should they have compromised, in the name of unity, since this is not an essential doctrine?

Gnostics

The Gnostics claimed to have secret knowledge. The Gnostics are similar to the New Age movement today in the way that they have many varying beliefs but all are somewhat similar. The primary belief that all Gnostics can agree on, is that matter is evil. Two schools of thought follow the matter is evi philosophy. One group believed in abstaining from any physical pleasure because it was all evil. The other group believed in total indulgence because the body is evil and separate from the soul. Gnostics believe that a god can emanate other gods. The child god is weaker than its parent. The god of this world, (Jehovah of the Old Testament) was evil. Some even teach that the serpent in the Garden of Eden was not the devil, but an emanation of a higher god than the creator of the world. Some Gnostics also taught that Jesus was an emanation and did not have a physical body. “When he walked on the beach, his apostles saw no footprints.” This heresy goes back to the time of the apostles and continues throughout history. On many occasions we see the church challenging the Gnostics and there are many interesting quotes. Can you imagine if the CC simply turned a blind eye to the whole matter? Many (as opposed to few) - churches today might very well be teaching such heresy.

Monarchianism

This is also called Modalism or the Sabellian heresy. Modalism/Monarchian doctrine usually did not deny the deity of Christ; instead they claimed that the Son is the Father, not the eternal Son however, as part of historic Christianity. Many church fathers wrote detailed responses against this doctrine. They taught that the Father suffered on the cross. Other sects taught that Jesus was only a man who received power from God.

The CC aptly responded and resolved this doctrinal heresy using sacred tradition and sacred scripture, as opposed to sola scriptura, however, many ignored the CC, which lead to the heresy also known as Dynamic Monarchian. At its inception, this heresy was never widely accepted, however, today, it has found a home in New Age influenced churches. This view believes in God and believes that Jesus was just a man indwelled by the Christ Spirit. Jesus became the Christ at his baptism when he received this Christ Spirit or Christ Mind. They used (and still use) Trinitarian terminology, but the meanings are not based in historic Christianity. Matt, should we be de-emphasizing our differences and concentrating on what we all can unite around, when it comes to such teachings? Is this what the early church should have done in the name of unity?

It seems to me that if the CC was being guided by the holy spirit, into all truth, when the CC was resolving doctrinal disputes such as these, and many many more, and the HS will be forever present in the CC, guiding the CC into all truth, then logically, the CC is still being guided by the holy spirit, into all truth, and can still be trusted regardless of the chaff mixed in with the wheat, just as the CC was trusted for the first 500 years of Christianity, regardless of the chaff mixed in with the wheat - don’t you think? BTW, I am not impugning the work of any Protestant church - never!

 

[joe370]

Montanus

Montanus was a Phyrgian Christian who began a new “prophetic” movement in the 3rd century. He traveled with his disciples, Priscilla and Maximilla who he called prophetesses. Montanus claimed to be the mouthpiece of God. He separated himself from the CC through is views of spiritual gifts, just as the various protestant movements did, and continue to do to this very day. He believed in prophetic utterance and this soon gave way to new revelations. This assembly of believers claimed to have its revelations delivered directly from the Holy Spirit, and they called themselves “The New Prophecy,” but CC writers referred to them as “The Phyrgian Heres.” Another practice that the CC opposed was its use of ecstatic, semiconscious states in its religious practices. This is similar to the “falling out” experienced by those “slain in the Spirit,” today - practiced in the church to which my sister belongs.

The CC via sacred tradition and sacred scripture, as opposed to just sola scriptura, arbitrated and settled this doctrinal dispute.

Arianism

Arius was a priest under the bishop, Alexander. He was excommunicated for his teachings that claimed that Jesus was a created being. Matt, did the CC make a mistake by excommunicating him? Regarding this Trinitarian issue, should they have simply de-emphasized their differences, concentrating more on what they all could unite around, or, were they right to do what they did, all the while striving for “more love, less judging?” Sometimes judgment of church leadership is essential, don’t you think? The question is: which church was given the authority to judge? Of course, that is for each person to decide for themselves! I think/believe that there was absolutely a need for both! This was the very reason why the CC focused on the Trinitarian dogma so much, long after the apostles walked the earth! No one was suggesting such heretical bunk when the apostles lived, regarding Jesus Christ. If Arius had lived back then, no doubt, the apostles and their successors would have handled it in the same manner. Arius adamantly rejected the use of the term ‘homoousios’ (of the same substance) as the identity of Jesus in relationship with the Father. He denied the Trinity because** he believed that if Jesus is begotten, he must be a created being and capable of falling from grace. He also reasoned that if Jesus was a created being, he could not be God. ** Don’t you see how important the Trinitarian doctrine was/is? If they would have allowed this particular interpretation to live on in the church, you and I might not believe that Jesus is in fact God.

There were many many other heresies and schisms that plagued the CC, that were eventually dealt with and defused, by the CC via sacred tradition and sacred scripture, as opposed to sola scriptura. Many of these gave birth to heretical beliefs, that live on today, and are continued to be propagated by various churches via sola scriptura, as opposed to sacred tradition and sacred scripture.

Of course, this is just my opinion…

 

[jewells17]

i think this pastor was referring to the issue of abortion only. we are one because we believed that this is evil. we are not one in Faith.

The Church is fighting relativism today more than ever. that is because protestants and others are trying to make people believe that there is not One Truth. they are trying to make people beleive that everybody got some truth, therefore, we all together make up the whole Truth. that is not what Jesus tought, neither did the Apostles.
their main line today is that the CC is trying to have a monopoly on the Truth.

This is one more heresy to discredit the Church Jesus built. to undermine the Church and to prevent people from entering the CC.

You are so right and we have new age centers sending their people out to our churches to gently but surely pass books and ideas on to our members to usurp their faith. This really is true and we need to pray because there is an agenda of the new age…it is to destroy the Catholic church from within. Pray the rosary and grow a back bone and stand up to them for the sake of the next generation.

 

[joe370]

Hey Mighty Pawn…

I’m going to use the example of a family with Jesus as the Dad.

Now Jesus had a son (the church). We’ll say it’s the CC. Later, the son (the CC) - had kids of his own but out of wedlock. But these little ones, even though being illegitimate loved their grandpa Jesus just as much as the son did and were accepted by him.

Absolutely…

The son (the CC) - said that grandpa (Jesus) - had told him that they should all write him a letter every Wednesday to say hi. The son had been pretty strict through the years on how Grandpa was to be treated and respected. But by writing to grandpa and getting letters back from him some of the kids came back saying that grandpa (Jesus) - had said to write to him ANY day of the week.

So the son’s kids (Christians belonging to the PC’s) - and the son (the CC) - had a falling out about what day they were to write to grandpa. They bickered back and forth about what the right day was. They even started arguing about a bunch of other stuff but the cool thing is they all KEPT writing (serving) - Grandpa letters.

Does that other stuff include the true presence in the Eucharist vs Eucharistic idolatry reputedly done everyday by the CC, the EOC and some Lutheran churches? This is pretty crucial to the way we are to write (serve) - Grandpa!

Grandpa (Jesus) - heard about this aguring and thought to himself, "If all my kids spent as much time writing to me (serving me) - and reading the letters I write back as they do arguing with each other about what I supposedly said, imagine what a proud grandpa I could be!

**“About what I supposedly said???” **Here is where you loose me! Has Jesus Christ left us with a way to know truth, doctrinally speaking?

If we both agree that the Holy Spirit, as per the holy bible, is forever guiding Jesus church into all truth, regarding the teachings of Jesus Christ, (John 14:16 and John 16:13) - then it would be apropos to say:

If all my kids spent as much time writing to me and reading the letters I write back as they do arguing with each other about what the Holy Spirit supposedly said, imagine what a proud grandpa I could be!

If the infallible holy spirit is the spirit of truth forever guiding Jesus’ church into all truth, then we don’t have to wonder what the holy spirit supposedly said; we can know for sure what the HS said to Jesus’ church- right or am I wrong?

What I’m just saying is that they might not agree on ANYTHING other then serving Jesus. But why does the “son” and the “kids” serve(write)? Because as disfunctional as it might be because of sin they are a family that at the end of the day really and truly love their grandpa. Are they an imperfect family? no question at all! But they are still ONE family.

MP, if you admit that nothing is impossible for God, then surely, the preservation of doctrinal truth in the church He established circa AD 33, in the face of dysfunction, division, disunity and ultimately, the sin of the members of His Mystical Body, the church, is not impossible for God either, especially since the holy spirit is forever guiding Jesus’ Mystical body into all truth- right? Either we can be content in the church to which we belong, loving and serving our Savior, knowing full well that we were not the ones responsible for all of the division in Jesus" Mystical Body, or, we can assume that nothing is impossible for God, including the preservation of all truth, that our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, ignominiously and heart-wrenchingly suffered and died for, on the cross, Ultimately Jesus died for us, so that we could be with Him forever, but these doctrinal truths seem pretty imperative, and there can be only one truth regarding any one doctrine - right??? But, then again, maybe you are right and it really doesn’t matter what we choose to believe, doctrinally speaking, just as long as we serve our savior. The question is: how do we serve Him? Is it true Eucharistic worship or false Eucharistic idolatry?

How do we serve Jesus? If all I have to do is serve Jesus, the way in which I feel, is the correct way, then perhaps I don’t even need to go church, as my brother says. Perhaps I don’t need to receive the Eucharist, or be baptized, or even read the bible; after all the bible nowhere tells me to read the bible. Perhaps I don’t need to pick up my cross and follow Jesus, (once saved always saved). All I have to do is serve Jesus.

Where do we draw the line in the sand that separates the essential doctrinal truths from the non-essential doctrinal truths, considering the fact that the holy bible does not make the distinction between the two? I am all for unity as one holy family, both Protestant and Catholic; no doubt about that, but at what cost, and who, by the way possesses the authority to draw that line in the sand? That’s the question that will sadly impede progress!

Help me figure out how to implement your wonderfully crafted parable?

Perhaps the following teaching of Jesus Christ, simply doesn’t matter anymore: “Be ye all of one mind.”

I understand what you are saying, and I totally agree. However, should a Christian even bother with the idea of locating the church of Matthew 16, promised by Jesus, to be in the world until the end of time, forever guided by the holy spirit, into all truth, as opposed to partial truths? In other words, does it even matter to which church I (we) - belong anymore, in the grand scheme of Jesus’ salvific plan for all of us?

Peace friend…