Trent Horn - Does it matter which Christian denomination you belong to?

[PRmerger]

Not even close , join a church based on teaching , not by laying of hands , that is a poor reason.

When one joins a church based on teaching, he has to shop around first. He has to go around to the many churches in his area, listen to the (fallible) pastor preach, then decide if he likes what this pastor said, if it agrees with his own personal interpretations of Scripture.

-this pastor preaches on Malachi 1:11 that it means, A, B and C? Well, that’s wrong. I believe it means X, Y and Z…

so on to the next church on the next corner.

-this pastor preaches that 1 Peter 3:13 means D. I don’t believe that. It means W…

so on to the next church on the next corner.

etc etc etc

Until he finds one that conforms to all of his own personal views.

Until…

this preacher, who is FALLIBLE, (and this church shopper knows it, so he knows this FALLIBLE pastor is going to be wrong at some point), preaches something that he believes to be wrong…

so then he leaves and either starts his own church…

Or…

starts the church shopping process all over again.

And round and round it goes.

Church shopping is just another way to find a church that conforms to one’s self.

Why not use the correct formula which is: find the Church Jesus established, and then join it, and then conform your views to this Church.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Join a church based on the teaching that conforms to your view of Scripture?

That’s creating a god in your own image, isn’t it?

Rather, shouldn’t you find the Church Christ established, and then conform your views to Christ’s, right?

Otherwise, what you are doing when you join a church that teaches things you believe is joining the Church of the Almighty Self, rather than the Church of the Almighty.

What is that saying? * “When I submit only when I agree, then the one to whom I submit, really is me.”*

Strike the" your view of " part out and you got my belief , find a church that teaches the Gospel and administers the sacraments , instead of choosing a church that out of pride and arrogance claims to be infallible and has a highly questionable link to the apostolic teaching .

 

[PRmerger]

Strike the" your view of " part out and you got my belief , find a church that teaches the Gospel and administers the sacraments , instead of choosing a church that out of pride and arrogance claims to be infallible and has a highly questionable link to the apostolic teaching .

Well, firstly, if you don’t believe that the Church is infallible, you can never quote from the NT as theopneustos, can you?

For you won’t be sure that it’s actually the inspired Word of God. Maybe the Church got it wrong about Hebrews being theopneustos, right? And maybe you should be quoting from the Epistle of Clement instead.

For, remember, there is no other way for you to know that Hebrews is inspired and the Epistles of Clement are not…except that you defer to the CC on this.

No. Other. Way.

 

[PRmerger]

Strike the" your view of " part out and you got my belief , find a church that teaches the Gospel

But which Gospel, Starwars?

The one that teaches that baptism is an ordinance? Or the one that says it saves?
The one that teaches that the day of worship is Saturday? Or the one that says it’s Sunday?
The one that teaches that Jesus is the blood brother of Michael the Archangel? Or the one that says he is the 2nd person of the Trinity?

You church shop for the church that proclaims what you already believe.

That’s exactly backwards, Starwars.

Rather, what you should do is receive the Gospel from the Church Christ established.

Again, NOT already know what the Gospel is (for where did you get it from anyway), and then find the church that teaches what you already know.

#backwards

NB: no need to address all the doctrinal questions I posed above. They are rhetorical only. They serve to show that there are about 130,000 different permutations of interpretations of the gospel that are possible.

 

[Duane1966]

Strike the" your view of " part out and you got my belief , find a church that teaches the Gospel and administers the sacraments , instead of choosing a church that out of pride and arrogance claims to be infallible and has a highly questionable link to the apostolic teaching .

On a different thread you chided a poster for insulting 38% of Christianity, but it is okay for you to insult one that some sources say have over 50%. My my, but isn’t that a case of do as I say, not as I do? Talk about pride and arrogance.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

On a different thread you chided a poster for insulting 38% of Christianity, but it is okay for you to insult one that some sources say have over 50%. My my, but isn’t that a case of do as I say, not as I do? Talk about pride and arrogance.

Major difference In trying to honesty call out error and calling BROTHERS and SISTERS in Chist apostates, repeat major difference , I was wrong in how I worded it though , I wasn’t trying to insult anyone , sorry about that .

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Well, firstly, if you don’t believe that the Church is infallible, you can never quote from the NT as theopneustos, can you?

For you won’t be sure that it’s actually the inspired Word of God. Maybe the Church got it wrong about Hebrews being theopneustos, right? And maybe you should be quoting from the Epistle of Clement instead.

For, remember, there is no other way for you to know that Hebrews is inspired and the Epistles of Clement are not…except that you defer to the CC on this.

No. Other. Way.

By making this statement you neglect Gods provision , God inspired the books , preserved them for his church , the early church used them as a functioning canon , the church merely compiled the canon that was already accepted, using a council so it is authoritative , so yes I can and do use the NT as well as the OT . And again sorry for my other comment , I was just saying that I don’t see evidence for an Infallible church , I said it out of care , but I worded it very poorly , ok .

 

[JMM1957]

By making this statement you neglect Gods provision , God inspired the books , preserved them for his church , the early church used them as a functioning canon , the church merely compiled the canon that was already accepted, using a council so it is authoritative , so yes I can and do use the NT as well as the OT . And again sorry for my other comment , I was just saying that I don’t see evidence for an Infallible church , I said it out of care , but I worded it very poorly , ok .

If there was already an accepted canon in use by the early church, then why did it take a couple hundred years for the canon to be closed by council??? You are making something sound so simple that clearly was not. We have mountains of historical documents saying that the canon had to be debated for a long, long time before it was accepted and finalized.

 

[PRmerger]

By making this statement you neglect Gods provision , God inspired the books , preserved them for his church , the early church used them as a functioning canon ,

LOL!

The above is nothing but a wonderful explication of the charism of infallibility at work!

After all, what do you think the charism of infallibility is, except for God’s provision–God assisting the pope/magisterium/church, God preserving this Tradition?

the church merely compiled the canon that was already accepted, using a council so it is authoritative , so yes I can and do use the NT as well as the OT .

I understand you think councils are authoritative.

But you think there may be errors in the NT canon.

You’re not certain that Hebrews is inspired.

Because you don’t believe that the Church is infallible.

So each and every time you quote from Hebrews, or 3 John, or Mark, you can’t be assured that it’s actually theopneustos.

Unless…

you believe that God preserved the Church from erroneously declaring something to be theopneustos .

And it sounds like you certainly do believe this.

Which means that you DO BELIEVE in the charism of infallibility.

You just can’t acknowledge it because you think “infallibility” means that the Church did this of her own power.

But when you understand that it’s nothing more (and nothing less) than** God **preserving His Word it’s easier to acknowledge, no?

And again sorry for my other comment , I was just saying that I don’t see evidence for an Infallible church , I said it out of care , but I worded it very poorly , ok .

:tiphat:

 

[estesbob]

Hie,

The same way you do, almost. Now as to which church then and how to decide that, again, the same way as you do, almost.

Blessings

You didn’t answer the question. I know the truth as it is been passed down from generation to generation via them Church founded by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago. Anyone who not Catholic but is Christian believes that the truth was hidden for at least 1500 years . Of course the problem with this is we now have several thousand different versions of the truth .

 

[Starwarsfan2]

You didn’t answer the question. I know the truth as it is been passed down from generation to generation via them Church founded by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago. Anyone who not Catholic but is Christian believes that the truth was hidden for at least 1500 years . Of course the problem with this is we now have several thousand different versions of the truth .

We do not believe in a great apostasy .

 

[PRmerger]

We do not believe in a great apostasy .

But you do believe that after the early Christians passed away, the kerygma was corrupted until the Reformers came along.

Right?

 

[zz912]

By making this statement you neglect Gods provision , God inspired the books , preserved them for his church , the early church used them as a functioning canon , the church merely compiled the canon that was already accepted, using a council so it is authoritative , so yes I can and do use the NT as well as the OT . And again sorry for my other comment , I was just saying that I don’t see evidence for an Infallible church , I said it out of care , but I worded it very poorly , ok .

Three things:

1. You accept that there was a church in existence a couple millennia ago. (does your denomination date back this far?)
2. There was no canon that “was already accepted”. They had to discuss and debate the issue quite a bit BECAUSE there was no universal canon.
3. You don’t seem to be aware of WHY the canon was needed in the first place. The Church wanted to make the readings in the Mass universal throughout the whole Catholic Church. So Catholic bishops gathered together and set a list of books that could be read in Mass. These books then began to be collected together as a united group and were called “the books” or Bible.

 

[estesbob]

We do not believe in a great apostasy .

Then how do you account for the 1,500 year gap before the “reformers” discerned the “truth”

 

[Starwarsfan2]

But you do believe that after the early Christians passed away, the kerygma was corrupted until the Reformers came along.

Right?

We believe that the church throughout history has taught the gospel , however , at times it has taught it purely, at others it still taught the gospel but mixed with error , the time of the reformation was one such time , and the Refomers brought the church back to teaching pure doctrine .

 

[PRmerger]

We believe that the church throughout history has taught the gospel , however , at times it has taught it purely, at others it still taught the gospel but mixed with error , the time of the reformation was one such time , and the Refomers brought the church back to teaching pure doctrine .

So let’s say there was a Christian in the year 800, and he wanted to know what the Church taught about the Mass being a sacrifice.

Who was the entity he appealed to that would speak authoritatively and finally on this matter?

What if he wanted to know what was the definitive canon of the NT? Who was the entity he appealed to that would speak authoritatively and finally on this matter?

I think your answer to the latter question would be: the Church, because this was formally defined in a council.

But what’s your answer to the first question?

 

[Starwarsfan2]

So let’s say there was a Christian in the year 800, and he wanted to know what the Church taught about the Mass being a sacrifice.

Who was the entity he appealed to that would speak authoritatively and finally on this matter?

What if he wanted to know what was the definitive canon of the NT? Who was the entity he appealed to that would speak authoritatively and finally on this matter?

I think your answer to the latter question would be: the Church, because this was formally defined in a council.

But what’s your answer to the first question?

Where would he or she go to learn of the real presence ? The church .

 

[estesbob]

We believe that the church throughout history has taught the gospel , however , at times it has taught it purely, at others it still taught the gospel but mixed with error , the time of the reformation was one such time , and the Refomers brought the church back to teaching pure doctrine .

Problem is the so called reformers came up with Doctrines that were not supported by scripture or tradition and were unheard for the 1,500 years before they were “revealed” to them… And the confusion strewn by the “reformation” has only increased since. Thousands of thousands of different versions of the truth leading one to believe , apparently, that God is the author of confusion

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Problem is the so called reformers came up with Doctrines that were not supported by scripture or tradition and were unheard for the 1,500 years before they were “revealed” to them… And the confusion strewn by the “reformation” has only increased since. Thousands of thousands of different versions of the truth leading one to believe , apparently, that God is the author of confusion

Let’s debate that on another thread , suffice it to say that they taught what WAS taught in the early church and the scriptures.

 

[estesbob]

Let’s debate that on another thread , suffice it to say that they taught what WAS taught in the early church and the scriptures.

That is the debate-and no, Sola Scriptura and Sola Fidelis were not taught in the early Church.