Were the NT churches independent or One?

[Randy_Carson]

When the other apostles declare the Gospel, Peter drops from sight in the scriptural account. When he reappears, at the council of Jerusalem, why is it that the Apostle James leads the Church and not Peter?

Thank you for the opportunity to shed some light on this, Yankee.

Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem

Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.

Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.” Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:

“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how …” (Acts 15:13-14).
​

Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).
​

Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:

“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”
​

It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12).
Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*
*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ?
bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm

To Bonocore’s comments above, I would add the following:

As leader of the church in Jerusalem, James headed up a congregation which counted among its members many priests and Pharisees who still held to their Jewish roots and believed that Gentiles must become Jews through circumcision in order to become Christians. I refer you to the following:

Acts 4:36-37
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.
Acts 6:7
7So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.
Some from among this group had gone to Galatia and upset the Gentile believers there.

Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
From this, we can see that the Council of Jerusalem was divided into two camps: those who believed the Gentile converts should be circumcised and those who did not.

Peter addresses the former with these words: 10Now then, why do **you [Judaizers] **try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

James addresses them, also: “Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon (note that James even used Peter’s Hebrew name when speaking to the Judaizers) has described to us (James must be speaking here to the believers from Jerusalem since those from Galatia would already have been familiar with God’s work in that province!) how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself…19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we (the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem) should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them…”

Thus, after hearing Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, James rose to speak and addressed those from his own flock whom he knew would have the hardest time accepting Peter’s decision. James accepted Peter’s teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might be tempted to doubt that the leader of the “Judaizers” really had accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yankee-

I think you can see how this is going to go.

You can throw out dozens of objections in a single post. I can address them one at a time in detail. In the end, you will have run out of questions, and I will have run out of patience.

But I will not have run out of answers.

 

[patricius79]

Those who say the Church in the N.T. was not one, and that there were all of these indepedent Church’s don’t know about Acts 15. And this is to me blaspemy to say that Christ’s Bride is not one, but many, as though Christ were a Polygamist like the moron who dimly foreshadowed his “promiscuous” love for the Church: Solomon!

 

[steve_b]

Why are there no Scripture verses that teach how the office of Pope is to be transmitted by Peter to his successors?

To followup on Randy’s excellent answers to you

Mt 23:2 and those who sit on Moses seat.

• Where in scripture other than this one reference, does it even hint at Moses having a seat? Or that the scribes and Pharisees now sat on it? They haven’t seen Moses for 1500 years. Where is the record of the succession? Yet Jesus confirms it is there and valid.
• Where is the argument that Jesus listeners thought Jesus was wrong?
• Scripture is silent on this other than this 1 quick reference. Jesus confirms that what He says is true AND there is no argument from these people steeped in tradition (oral & written) . Which means Jesus listeners weren’t in disagreement, they already knew what He said was true.

When Jesus made Peter the leader of His people, there was arguing among the apostles, over who is the greatest among THEM. Jesus settled this argument quickly.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5744432&postcount=59

count the number of times Jesus confirms Peter in front of the apostles. Just as He did after the Resurrection but before His ascension back to heaven

One last time, Jesus in front of ALL the apostles AGAIN, singled out Peter, and told Peter to feed and rule my sheep (poimaino IS the Greek word used there* which means rule**) [Jn 21:16]** *

And because Jesus kingdom will have no end, Peter will have successors too.

 

[yankee_drifter]

Randy Carson,

I would like to ask what web site you are quoting from.

Thanks.

 

[yankee_drifter]

In the book of Hebrews we do not see any association of the Priesthood of Jesus with the Eucharist. Neither does it suggest that other Christians are priests in the likeness of Jesus. In fact, the once-for-all atmosphere that surrounds the priesthood of Jesus in Heb.10:12-14, has been offered as an explanation of why there are no Christian priests in the NT period.

Hebrews states quite clearly of the OT priests “And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them” (Heb.7:23-25) “Unchangeable priesthood” means in the Greek: “untransferable”. The reason it cannot be transferred to men is that its essence is Christ’s own, …who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens" (vs. 26).

When we enter into the NT, it is quite interesting to note that while there are pagan priests and Jewish priests on the scene, no individual Christian is ever specifically identified as a priest.

Paul never taught an office of priests because it was not instituted by Christ. "presbyter"does not mean “priest.” The terms used in the NT to describe the ministers of the church are: presbyters, elders bishops, overseers, pastors, shepherds.

In Rom 15:15,16 Paul said it was by the grace given him that he should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles." To do what? Preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. Compare this with Eph 3:8, “Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ." Paul is not a priest. No title, rank or office is given to him. The priesthood of believers that Peter wrote about belongs to the entire Christian ministry commissioned by Christ to the preaching of the Gospel to lost sinners. Instead of being faithful to what the apostles taught that the gospel must be preached everywhere, the RCC re-sacrifices Christ at every Mass.

The two main functions of the RC priest are: The offering of the propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass; and the forgiveness sins by the sacrament of penance. What apostle ever taught that? In the NT, the Eucharist, or Last Supper, was considered a “remembrance” of the Lord and His sacrifice; not a continual re-presentation of the sacrifice of Christ. The RCC never seems to get beyond Calvary. This explains why in its churches the body of Jesus is always hanging upon the cross, but in other denominations, the cross is bare because Christ is no longer there. There is no place for a “visible and external priesthood” in the church since Christ, our Priest, offered one perfect sacrifice, and He ever lives to intercede for His own. No priest is to be a mediator since Christ alone is the Mediator between man and God.

Paul never mentions an office of “priests” for atonement for sin, or to offer a propitiatory sacrifice to God. Among the numerous designations of the ministers of the gospel in the NT, intended to set forth the nature of their office, they are never officially called priests.

Today, Christian pastors continue to lead people to Christ by the** preaching of the Word** that they may receive life and forgiveness through faith in Him. This is what Christ taught to the apostles, the apostles to their disciples, and on down to us today.

 

[steve_b]

In the book of Hebrews we do not see any association of the Priesthood of Jesus with the Eucharist. Neither does it suggest that other Christians are priests in the likeness of Jesus. In fact, the once-for-all atmosphere that surrounds the priesthood of Jesus in Heb.10:12-14, has been offered as an explanation of why there are no Christian priests in the NT period.

You’re wrong, Heb 10:19-28 is all about the Eucharist, the mass, priesthood.

dissecting the following passages

Heb 10:

19 Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh,

The sanctuary, Jesus flesh and blood, the NEW and living way, speaks of the mass and the Eucharist.

21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

Well yd, there’s the priesthood of Jesus you said wasn’t there. He passes His priesthood on, explained at the end

we also see baptism is presumed of those who are being taught by this epistle.

23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful;

IOW, this is to be passed on with every fiber of their being.

24 and let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

missing mass on Sunday, maybe the habit of some, but it’s not ok. It’s neglecting and not holding fast to one’s faith. They are being warned. Ergo, this is not new teaching. Meet together on Sunday without wavering IS essential and not a new teaching.

26 For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27* but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries.

missing mass deliberately after one is told NOT to, is a serious sin because they deliberately blow off receiving the sacrifice for sin, the Eucharist. Explained at the end

28* A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29* How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?

Blood of the Covenant is reference to the Eucharist. This entire section of Hebrews is a reference to the Eucharist. This is why deliberately missing the Eucharist is so bad.

Summarizing the key points, scripturally

Explanation of the Eucharist

Jn 6:

44* No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

[snip]

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven;if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." 52* The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56* He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58* This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”

Institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper

Mt 26:
Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; 28* for this is my blood of the * covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Lk 22
19 Do this in remembrance of me."

BTW, When Jesus said “do this”, for those around the table, this is the power to offer and make possible the sacrifice just as Jesus is doing for THEM. Jesus is instituting the NT sacrificial priesthood.

 

[Philthy]

Please show me via the Scriptures (Ch.and vs.) where Christ specifically established the same type of hierarchy that the RCC has. When we read Matt. 20:25-28, we see that Jesus clearly condemns hierarchy. Over and over Christ said a leader must be a servant. In fact, He mocks those who dress and act in such a way that distinguishes themselves as more “lofty”. (Matt. 23: 5,6)

I think this paragraph of confusion is a microcosm of how some approach apologetics.
They have an opinion which they believe is based upon Scripture, but which is, in fact, erroneous. For example, where exactly does Christ “clearly condemn hierarchy”? What Christ does do, in fact, is to teach what it truly means to be a leader in a hierarchy. It means you are a servant. Just as He is our “head” and demonstrated his leadership through service. Leadership has nothing to do with bringing praise to your self. That was the mistake the Pharisees and Scribes were making. This is perfectly clear to anyone with an open mind. Im afraid not everyone has an open mind.
What is not captured here is the inability of many of these individuals to actually DIALOGUE with those who respectfully disagree with them. Have ANY of Randy’s or Steve’s rebuttals received even a hint of respectful consideration? :nope: I dont think so, but perhaps I am wrong. What I see an inability to engage in the dialogue and an inability to accept “reproof” (2Tim3:16). I am often disheartened by such exchanges, but ultimately I believe that the truth shines clearly for all who wish to see it and that many of the lurkers can easily recognise which positions stand in the light of day and which do not.

 

[Philthy]

Randy Carson,

I would like to ask what web site you are quoting from.

Thanks.

Who cares? You dont seem to be able to respond to anything that is offered to you in the way of rebuttal…are you hear to monologue or dialogue?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy Carson,

I would like to ask what web site you are quoting from.

Thanks.

Post 174 - an excerpt from an article by Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers
Post 175 - my own work
Post 176 - an excerpt from an article by Catholic Answers staff
Post 177 - an excerpt from an article by Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers
Post 178 - my own work
Post 179 - my own work

If you have more questions, I have hundreds more articles neatly catalogued for instant access.

Let me know.

 

[MarkInOregon]

The church described in the NT did not have a Roman pope; it did not teach purgatory; it did not venerate Mary; it did not teach salvation by faith and works. All of these practices crept in gradually.The tendencies toward work righteousness and to hierarchicalism were already trying to worm their way into the church in the days of the apostles. Paul, for example, opposed this in Galatians. Within a century or two, these tendencies were already strong, but they were not yet headed by one man, the bishop of Rome. If you read Peter’s first letter, you will see that he did not teach a Roman hierarchy, but that all Christians are royal priests. The Church still teaches this today. You misunderstand our priesthood as lay people and the ministerial priesthood. The same keys given to Peter in Matthew 16 are given to the whole church of believers in Matthew 18 No they are not–they (the apostles) are given the power of binding and losening–not the keys only Peter is given the keys. Papal infallibility was not officially proclaimed until the 19th century. Mary’s immaculate conception and bodily assumption were not officially and definitively proclaimed until the 19th and 20th century.

The real test of which church is the original apostolic church is to compare the teachings of that church with the Bible.The RCC admits that many of their teachings are not in the Bible but are based on traditions and rulings of the pope. The Mass was unknown in the early church and did not become an official doctrine until pronounced by the Lateran Council of 1215. While I am sure someone will mention this - just quickly I would suggest you read Justin Martyr and tell me if your church service looks anything like the service he describes. I then suggest you attend a Catholic mass and then with a straight face say “the mass was unknown in the early Church”. Heck you can even read the New Testament – and see that the early Church gatherings are more like a Mass than most current non liturgical protestant gatherings.

The Roman Catholic Church also teaches that none of their teaching conflict with the Bible. I find more contradictory to the Bible in much protestant teaching of the day while I find no Roman Catholic teaching that cannot be reconciled with the Bible. Our teachings if not explicitly stated in the Bible may be inferred. I think you have misrepresented the Churches position with regard to its teachings and the Bible.

.

Can you through more mud in one post? There must be 1000 threads in your post.

 

[patricius79]

The councils did not legislate the canon so much as set forth what had become self-evident truth and practice within the churches of God." (Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament?, Fr. James Bernstein, Orthodox churchman, 1994, p 13)

It’s not either/or. But this shows how the Canon came through the oral Tradition of the Church, which is the Word of God. Until Damasus (et al.) and the Councils of Carthage settled the Canon, it wasn’t fully settled, though the Church had the same beliefs everywhere, as Irenaeus testified.

 

[yankee_drifter]

Apostle means servant of God, messenger, one who is sent out. It does not mean one who sits in the place of Christ who is God. Peter was a Shepard, not THE Shepard as that alone belongs to Christ. Those are Peter’s own words. In 1 Peter 5:1 Peter says: “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder.” Notice he doesn’t say THE elder, head elder, chief, or even head of the apostles, but a FELLOW elder. We err when we make claims that a person meant something quite different from what he actually said. Let Peter speak for himself. Peter does not command, but exhorts. He does not claim power to rule over all pastors and churches. Paul, when describing the first order in the church, he mentions “apostles,” not “Peter,” nor “the bishop of Rome” (1 Cor 12:28). Paul writes one of his longest epistles to the Roman church, and he never says anything about a papacy, nor does he even mention Peter in association with the church at Rome. Paul mentions 27 people by name, but makes no mention of Peter. That would have been inexcusable if Peter had been pope. Later, Paul writes from Rome to several churches, but not once does he mention that Peter is in Rome. Paul repeatedly writes about visiting the Roman church and preaching the gospel there and not one word about Peter suggests that he didn’t believe that Peter was already founder and bishop of the Roman church (Ro 1:15, 15:20).

Peter taught against hierarchicalism. He warned the pastors against “being lords over God’s heritage.” Peter taught that the only priesthoods in the NT dispensation are the High Priesthood of Jesus Christ and the general priesthood of all believers. (1 Peter 2:9) No other type of priesthood. The need for priests ended in the New Covenant.

Peter never claimed to be Christ on earth. Never claimed for himself all the names that belong to Christ alone.Yet what does the RCC say? “All names which in the Scriptures are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope.” (On the Authority of the Councils, book 2)

What does the New York Catechism say? “**The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth…by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth.” **

Writers on the canon law say “The pope and God are the same, he has all power on heaven and earth.”

There are many more quotes that say basically the same thing. Does this sound like Peter? Did Peter ever claim a type of godhood? Did Peter ever decree any new laws? There are no verses in all of Scriptures which indicates that the church has the authority to decree laws for God. The apostles and prophets alone were commissioned by the Lord, not to originate truth, but to reveal truth. Their task was once and for all completed for they gave us the written NT of Christ.

What does the RCC say? “The Pope has the power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ.” “The Pope has the authority and often exercised it, to dispense with the command of Christ.” “The Pope can modify divine law.” (Ferraris’ Ecclesiastical Dictionary).

The NT tells us that the responsibility of the church today is simply to follow, defend and proclaim the truth which they revealed.

One must be careful not to read Christian history or the Bible backwards through the eyes of Rome.

 

[yankee_drifter]

I apologize if my postings are too long. I have been getting 100’s of questions and comments which I have been trying to address. I will keep my postings shorter.

I am not throwing mud. I try to use God’s Word. In the Scriptures it says, let God be true and every man a liar. (Romans 3:4)

 

[Randy_Carson]

I apologize if my postings are too long. I have been getting 100’s of questions and comments which I have been trying to address. I will keep my postings shorter.

I am not throwing mud. I try to use God’s Word. In the Scriptures it says, let God be true and every man a liar. (Romans 3:4)

Yankee_drifter-

Please understand that every day, an evangelical Christian drops into this forum chomping at the bit to preach the gospel to Catholics who need to get saved.

Brother, believe me, we have heard it many, many, MANY times before. In fact, those of us who are converts TO the Catholic Church used to believe and argue just as you do.

If you are getting overwhelmed, my recommendation is that you pick ONE topic (justification by faith alone, sola scriptura, purgatory, etc.), and discuss that topic and that topic only until you have exhausted yourself or the subject itself. Then pick your second topic and start a new thread.

Telling us all that you feel we are wrong about in a single post will not convert a one of us to your point of view. If you want to save us from eternity in hell, you need to be careful and methodical in your approach.

Good luck with that.

 

[yankee_drifter]

Before we can even discuss matters of faith and doctrine, we need to establish authority. What is the roman catholic’s authority? Who is authorized to speak for the church of Rome? How does your gospel compare with the gospel of Jesus Christ?

If I say purgatory is a false doctrine, or justification is by faith alone in Christ alone, or prayers to Mary is unscriptural, and roman catholics disagree, then how do we determine who is correct?

Is there Scriptural proof that apostolic authority was handed down to us? Where does it teach that Paul or any of the apostles passed along authority to write out traditions and place them on par with God’s Word, the Holy Bible? Where did Jesus ever establish an infallible church that would sit in judgment of the scriptures?

If you say you have teachings that are not in the Scriptures, but are church Tradition, then show me the book that has your traditions. Show me where the magisterium was in the 1st century

 

[Randy_Carson]

Before we can even discuss matters of faith and doctrine, we need to establish authority.

Authority is a matter of faith and morals.

What is the roman catholic’s authority?

The authority of the Catholic Church was received by the Apostles from Jesus Christ.

Who is authorized to speak for the church of Rome?

The pope and the bishops in union with him.

How does your gospel compare with the gospel of Jesus Christ?

They are identical, of course. It does not agree with your understanding, however, and that should tell you something. But you just said we were going to begin with authority, and in less that three paragraphs, you’re already off on another tangent.

If I say purgatory is a false doctrine, or justification is by faith alone in Christ alone, or prayers to Mary is unscriptural, and roman catholics disagree, then how do we determine who is correct?

I will tie one hand behind my back and do my best to appeal exclusively to scripture. However, logic should not be ruled out, and I think it is reasonable to examine what the earliest Christians, called the Early Church Fathers, thought about the gospel that they had been taught directly by the Apostles.

Is there Scriptural proof that apostolic authority was handed down to us? Where does it teach that Paul or any of the apostles passed along authority to write out traditions and place them on par with God’s Word, the Holy Bible? Where did Jesus ever establish an infallible church that would sit in judgment of the scriptures?

Yes, these are the kinds of questions we should address.

If you say you have teachings that are not in the Scriptures, but are church Tradition, then show me the book that has your traditions. Show me where the magisterium was in the 1st century

If Sacred Tradition was in a book, then it would be Sacred Scripture, now wouldn’t it?

As for the Magisterium, of course I can show it to you from the first century…I can show it to you from the Bible itself.

We should start a new thread for this. We can argue the premise that Jesus established an authoritative, visible, hierarchical Church founded upon Peter the rock. This will have a definite “Catholic” feel to it.

Or we can argue that the Bible is the sole rule of faith for the believer. This will have a definite “Protestant” feel to it.

Kinda like chess…I can play either white or black.

Which do you prefer?

 

[Dave_H]

Randy:
As I said on Triston’s post, I believe Yankee is from a denomination (and it is) called the C of C or Church of Christ. Check out the history of this group, it’s interesting.
They seem to have grasped Martin Luther’s ideas later than most reformers.
I was baptised by a CofC group eight yrs ago, and soon got an uneasy feeling about there beliefs. I also made a point of questioning everything a pastor,minister or priest taught after that, not taking them for face value. This search brought me to the Catholic Church and I came into the Church Easter vigil 2005.
Thanks be to God
Dave H

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy:
As I said on Triston’s post, I believe Yankee is from a denomination (and it is) called the C of C or Church of Christ. Check out the history of this group, it’s interesting.
They seem to have grasped Martin Luther’s ideas later than most reformers.
I was baptised by a CofC group eight yrs ago, and soon got an uneasy feeling about there beliefs. I also made a point of questioning everything a pastor,minister or priest taught after that, not taking them for face value. This search brought me to the Catholic Church and I came into the Church Easter vigil 2005.
Thanks be to God
Dave H

Is this the church of Christ (little “c”)?

 

[yankee_drifter]

Dave H.

No, I am not a member of the Church of Christ, nor do I agree with some of their teachings. I do not adhere to any specific denomination. I consider myself a nondenominational evangelical. I believe in Biblical Christianity.