What does 'Church no, Jesus yes' mean?

[freerf]

There are quite a few non-denominational Churches here where I live who have simultaneously stated “Jesus Yes, Religion No” worship series, so many so that I have to question wheter they are utilizing a central source of doctrine. When a bunch of Churches all within a 25 mile radius of each other offer similarly themed worship series, one has to wonder if they have not formed, or at least made use of an loosely formed religion.

I believe, as has been communicated to me, that “Jesus… not religion” means that one can be saved through knowledge of the Bible and faith in Jesus outside of the context of organized religion. In many cases, organized religion is seen not only as unnessisary but also as a hinderance to salvation. I don’t think I’m too far off base here based on what my Evangelical friends have communicated to me.

This is based on the belief that all religions are fallible institutions created by men, rather than the Catholic view which is that the Holy Catholic Church was created by God as his infallible instrument of salvation among men.

What is quite ironic about the Jesus and Me Churches which teach that organized religion is either unnessisary for or a hindrance to salvation, is how many of them tout how they are growing and all have extensive marketing campaigns aimed at growht. One Church in particular has a billboard which reads “One Church, Two Locations!” Another has a big sign which says, “Seven Churches in one” and another says “Come grow with us.”

Jesus without religion seems like a self refuting doctrine to me. It’s untenable, like coffee without a cup.

-Tim-

Very well put. I attended a non-denom. church for some time and agree with the sentiment stated above. Particularily, a phrase more clearly describing the belief, as stated above, is “Jesus Yes, Religion No” or better yet, “Jesus Yes, Tradition No”. Very few protestants believe that church is not necessary (I’ve met maybe one or two), however, it is very common among non-denominationals to believe religion (ie tradition) is not necessary. It can be nice, but not necessary. Contrast this with the Catholic teaching that Tradition is essential.

I also agree with the above poster that the hypocracy among these churchs on this point is obvious and obnoxious.

I think though that for clarity’s sake this isn’t a “protestant” saying so much as a evangelical, non-denominational or neo-Christian saying.

 

[SteveVH]

Not sure I completely agree here, William.

“Jesus, Yes; the Church, No” is a perfectly good answer to a lot of things, and a wrong answer to several others.

Who saves you? Jesus, Yes. The Church, No. The church should proclaim Christ, but never get itself confused with Christ.

Very simply, the Church is the union of God with man in Jesus Christ. The Church is not just an institution set up to lead people to salvation. It is salvation because it is the continuation of the work of Christ himself.

How does the Holy Spirit come to us? “Jesus? Yes. The Church? No.” At least not on tap.

Again, the Holy Spirit comes to us through the Church by virtue of the sacraments. You don’t get this outside of the Church.

What’s the message of the Gospel? “Jesus, Yes. The Church, No.” The Gospel is Jesus centered, and the church should be, too.

Yes, the message of the Gospel is Jesus, but what did Jesus do in the Gospel? He started a Church. Why? To carry on his work in spreading the kingdom of God to all the earth. You cannot separate Christ from the Church. He gave the Church the extraordinary power and authority so that what it binds on earth is bound in heaven.

To whom do I owe complete submission, loyalty and allegiance? “Jesus, Yes. The Church, No.”

I don’t know who has been catechizing you but you had better ask some questions. The voice of the Church is the voice of Christ and you are bound to submit to its teachings if you want to remain Catholic.

What am I proclaiming in evangelism? “Jesus, Yes. The Church, No.” The church has its place in evangelism, but not as the bread of life given for the world.

It is how the Bread of Life is given to the world.

I won’t bother responding to the rest of your comments due to time. As I said, the Church is the union of God with man in Jesus Christ. The Church doesn’t just lead to it, but is it. Having a relationship with Christ means having a relationship with his Church. They cannot be separated.

 

[Hiskid1973]

I think the word religion/religious has varied meanings…I’ve been walking with Christ for almost 40 year and met a lot of “religious” people who lived like the devil the rest of the week…There was a lot of religious people in Jesus time who put on a show but were white washed tombs inside…Christianity is a religion but to be “in Christ” you need to “know” him and not just about Him…We all have people sitting around us who are either hot, lukewarm or cold. From those who have a passionate faith in Christ to those who show up every Sunday because it’s their culture…Christ knows who are His…

 

[SteveVH]

I think the word religion/religious has varied meanings…I’ve been walking with Christ for almost 40 year and met a lot of “religious” people who lived like the devil the rest of the week…There was a lot of religious people in Jesus time who put on a show but were white washed tombs inside…Christianity is a religion but to be “in Christ” you need to “know” him and not just about Him…We all have people sitting around us who are either hot, lukewarm or cold. From those who have a passionate faith in Christ to those who show up every Sunday because it’s their culture…Christ knows who are His…

Truer words were never spoken. This is certainly true in the Catholic Church. At the same time, I do not define my Church according to those who do not live it. We have, in the Catholic Church, the most intimate relationship with God available to man in the Eucharist. But I totally agree with you that there is a big difference in learning about Christ and knowing Christ. I think that there are some, maybe many, who go to church all their lives and never really know Him. So, while I believe that the Catholic Church is the one, true, Church, it does one no good to simply “belong” to the Church. Meeting Christ and putting flesh on the words of the Gospel is why we are there and if that doesn’t happen then nothing else really matters.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Christ built an authoritative Church, on the Apostles He chose and appointed. Every Sunday may appear to be a ‘cultural’ thing to some, but they seem to fail to realize it’s a Christian cultural thing started by Christ Himself. It is the place to truly come to know Christ. Without it, one cheats himself of knowing Him truly and fully.

Christ walked among men during His ministry, who did not know Him. Christ told them the scriptures, they thought gave everlasting life, gave testimony of Him.

For those that do not think they need the Church, tell us who the leaders are that you are to obey, and be subject to, as the inspired word of God tells us in Hebrews 13:17? People can’t see an authoritative Church in scriptures, yet want to convince everyone they can fully see Christ in scriptures. He is the head of His Church.

 

[bogeydogg]

I don’t believe it means any of those things mentioned above, at least to any intelligent Protestant.

Ask this question in a Protestant forum if you want a serious answer. So far, all that has been put forth are “straw man” positions, and nothing worth considering seriously.

When I want to know about Catholic teaching, I go to a catholic forum, and vice versa. Having asked about Catholic teaching on a Protestant website, I know the kind of self-serving hogwash people dish out (not all people, mind you).

To do otherwise is to keep oneself in ignorance.

Not to overstress the point but I never said a person who attends a protestant church (which btw I do) would say this I simply said that a person who claims to love Christ but has disdain for His Body (the Church) has a strange disconnect in their thinking. Such a disconnect gives thinking people a reason to think that their profession of faith may be specious.

I never said there are not any good protestant teachers and neither did anyone else we simply pointed out that those who wish to separate themselves from the Church while claiming to be Christian have a problem.

God Bless

 

[Too_Blest_x3]

SteveVH thank you for cleaning up the errors of William. However, in your answer to the Holy Spirit question, I’d have to say the Holy Spirit absolutely works outside of the Church or else noone would be led into the faith, and don’t forget baptism and marriage can still be sacraments outside of the Catholic Church. God love you. Dominus vobiscum.

In Christ,
Joshua

 

[babylonsfalling]

There are quite a few non-denominational Churches here where I live who have simultaneously stated “Jesus Yes, Religion No” <–There are people who make a religion out of opposing “religion” and they often use the words like “religion” or “too religious” to describe whatever they don’t want to do worship series, so many so that I have to question wheter they are utilizing a central source of doctrine. When a bunch of Churches all within a 25 mile radius of each other offer similarly themed worship series, one has to wonder if they have not formed, or at least made use of an loosely formed religion.

I believe, as has been communicated to me, that “Jesus… not religion” means that one can be saved through knowledge of the Bible and faith in Jesus outside of the context of organized religion. <–That could apply to people in some remote undeveloped part of the planet. The problem is that in most parts of planet people use the “don’t HAVE to go to Church” scree as an EXCUSE because they don’t WANT to go to church. In many cases, organized religion is seen not only as unnessisary but also as a hinderance to salvation. ***<–Too much “religion” could be a bad thing. By that I mean too much reliance on legalism, ritual, ceremony, etc. The Catholic Church does not reach the “too much” level however, even though some say otherwise. ***don’t think I’m too far off base here based on what my Evangelical friends have communicated to me.

This is based on the belief that all religions are fallible institutions created by men, rather than the Catholic view which is that the Holy Catholic Church was created by God as his infallible instrument of salvation among men.

What is quite ironic about the Jesus and Me Churches which teach that organized religion is either unnessisary for or a hindrance to salvation, is how many of them tout how they are growing and all have extensive marketing campaigns aimed at growht. One Church in particular has a billboard which reads “One Church, Two Locations!” Another has a big sign which says, “Seven Churches in one” and another says “Come grow with us.”

Jesus without religion seems like a self refuting doctrine to me. It’s untenable, like coffee without a cup.

-Tim-

There are folks who think the word religion is ALWAYS negative in meaning when in fact it’s not. It can be good or bad, like many things…

James 1:26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.

James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

One they get into the “always bad” mode about religion, they start using the word “religion” to condemn others AND and to condemn whatever they don’t want to do.

If they like going out Saturday night and sleeping in Sunday morning, then going to church on Saturday night or Sunday morning becomes too religious.

If they don’t like going to confession, they “decide” it’s part of a man made religion so they can have a theological reason which in reality is just a phony excuse.

If they don’t like a whole lot of stuff in the Catholic Church, they decide the whole Church is a man made religion and use that as an excuse to abandon Catholicism altogether. Then (if they continue with church at all) they just search through the countless different doctrines of non Catholic churches till they find a genuine man made religion with a pastor that will tell them they were already forgiven all their sins when they were saved so they don’t need to worry about whatever they want to do.

And THEN comes that phrase regarding sin that I’ve NEVER EVER heard from a Catholic and doubt that I ever will…“It doesn’t matter because I’m already forgiven.”

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

It is the arrogant belief that you, and you alone, know what Jesus is thinking - and that, by an astounding coincidence, Jesus agrees in every way with you - that He in fact thinks with your mind, and that the voice of your own thoughts is, in fact, His voice, speaking to you.

It is, therefore, extremely difficult to argue with a “Jesus and me” believer.

Unforunately, this is becoming increasingly common. I work with a woman that believes between herself and the bible, she can understand what’s required for salvation and that church is a “scam.” Such hubris, especially when you consider breath and scope of debate amongst theological scholars in every age over the past two millieniums.

 

[Rence]

Christ built an authoritative Church, on the Apostles He chose and appointed.

And most non-Catholics I know agree witht that. But non-Catholics don’t believe in the ‘line of succession’ that Catholics believe in. They believe that the Pope today is far removed from what Jesus presented, and that the Bishops are even more far removed from what the Apostles presented in Jesus’ day. It’s not that they don’t believe that Christ built the Church and appointed and chose His Apostles, it’s just that they believe over time they became less of what Jesus wanted, and more misguided by their own doing.

Every Sunday may appear to be a ‘cultural’ thing to some, but they seem to fail to realize it’s a Christian cultural thing started by Christ Himself. It is the place to truly come to know Christ. Without it, one cheats himself of knowing Him truly and fully.

They don’t see it that way. They believe they can worship God anywhere, and feel most at home in the religion they are in, or in the non-religion way of life that they have.

For those that do not think they need the Church, tell us who the leaders are that you are to obey, and be subject to, as the inspired word of God tells us in Hebrews 13:17? People can’t see an authoritative Church in scriptures, yet want to convince everyone they can fully see Christ in scriptures. He is the head of His Church.

Right. But those who believe that the Church evolved and veered off into something much different than what Christ intended can’t all be convinced that He is the head of the Church even though they believe He is the head of their lives. They live according to their conscience and believe God guides them if they ask him.

Yes, we have the Church, but we also in our day to day lives ask God to guide us on our daily journey…I know I do. I don’t say, “Dear Catholic Church, guide me today to be the best I can be in my service of others, etc…”, I say, “Dear God, guide me today to be the best I can be in my service of others, etc.” And so do they. From the perspective of the non-religious, that isn’t much different. The only difference is that we have the Church as well as God on a more personal level, and they only have God on the a more personal level without the legalism of the Church. We would feel empty, but they don’t feel the same way. They feel liberated.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH thank you for cleaning up the errors of William. However, in your answer to the Holy Spirit question, I’d have to say the Holy Spirit absolutely works outside of the Church or else noone would be led into the faith, and don’t forget baptism and marriage can still be sacraments outside of the Catholic Church. God love you. Dominus vobiscum.

In Christ,
Joshua

I would agree completely that the Holy Spirit is active among all human beings, constantly drawing them to the Father. But in drawing them to the Father, he draws them toward the fullness of truth found only in the Catholic Church; Christ’s presence on earth.
We could accurately say that God is everywhere, but not in the same way that He is present in His Church, otherwise there was no need for Christ to start His Church. So yes, the Holy Spirit is omnipresent, prompting and urging all to come to the Father through His Son. But to fully surrender to Christ means to fully surrender to His Church. To have a relationship with Christ, in the fullest sense, means a relationship with His Church. The fullness of grace and the essence of “relationship” is found only in the sacraments. The Father waits for all of us, and looks down the road in anticipation of our return to Him.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And most non-Catholics I know agree witht that. But non-Catholics don’t believe in the ‘line of succession’ that Catholics believe in. They believe that the Pope today is far removed from what Jesus presented, and that the Bishops are even more far removed from what the Apostles presented in Jesus’ day. It’s not that they don’t believe that Christ built the Church and appointed and chose His Apostles, it’s just that they believe over time they became less of what Jesus wanted, and more misguided by their own doing.

The problem of not believing in the line of succession is, it is non-scriptural. There are no examples of anyone assuming a position of authority, because of their own desires for such a position, in scriptures. There are no examples of others without authority choosing and appointing leaders of the Church in scriptures. There are no examples of anyone disagreeing with a Church of one location and moving to a Church of another location for doctrinal differences. There was ONE Church in many locations, with one set of doctrines. As you stated, ‘over time they became…more misguided.’

They don’t see it that way. They believe they can worship God anywhere, and feel most at home in the religion they are in, or in the non-religion way of life that they have.

God can be worshiped anywhere. Faith obligations are 24/7. The mall of Churches available today have people shopping for a Church that fits their lifestyles, as opposed to fitting their lifestyles to His Church.

Right. But those who believe that the Church evolved and veered off into something much different than what Christ intended can’t all be convinced that He is the head of the Church even though they believe He is the head of their lives. They live according to their conscience and believe God guides them if they ask him.

Yes, we have the Church, but we also in our day to day lives ask God to guide us on our daily journey…I know I do. I don’t say, “Dear Catholic Church, guide me today to be the best I can be in my service of others, etc…”, I say, “Dear God, guide me today to be the best I can be in my service of others, etc.” And so do they. From the perspective of the non-religious, that isn’t much different. The only difference is that we have the Church as well as God on a more personal level, and they only have God on the a more personal level without the legalism of the Church. We would feel empty, but they don’t feel the same way. They feel liberated.

That liberation is serving other than His will, even if it’s blindly and not realizing the error. I know when I was Protestant there were times I and others acknowledged loving Jesus therefore justifying not having to attend a weekly Church service so that we could enjoy some secular activity. I recognize the ‘blindness’ and not realizing the error now…

 

[Rence]

The problem of not believing in the line of succession is, it is non-scriptural. There are no examples of anyone assuming a position of authority, because of their own desires for such a position, in scriptures. There are no examples of others without authority choosing and appointing leaders of the Church in scriptures. There are no examples of anyone disagreeing with a Church of one location and moving to a Church of another location for doctrinal differences. There was ONE Church in many locations, with one set of doctrines. As you stated, ‘over time they became…more misguided.’

I’m not convinced that is true. I’d have to find it again, but I read a history article where it said that there were various little offshoots even in the very early Church and that it wasn’t as universally one as people think it was. And even if it was… I can see how people branched out over time. In the scriptures there are no examples of others assuming a position of authority because of their own desiries for such a position, but I do know that in the past people have thought just that of bishops and previous popes. Depending on where one lived, and in which community, I’m sure that there were plenty of examples. Certainly the problems the Church has today has led many people to question the Church for those very reasons. And there are no examples in scripture of anyone disagreeing with a Church of one location and moving to a Church of another location for doctrinal differences, but that doesn’t mean that just because it wasn’t in scripture that it didn’t happen in communities.

God can be worshiped anywhere. Faith obligations are 24/7. The mall of Churches available today have people shopping for a Church that fits their lifestyles, as opposed to fitting their lifestyles to His Church.

I can’t really blame them. Some teachings of the Church are difficult to swallow, let alone follow. Some people find certain teachings easy to follow, while others find them hard to follow but do follow them anyway, then there are those who just don’t follow them. Yes, you’re supposed to trust the Church to lead you, but the fact is, many don’t have that trust in the Church. It’s easy for someone to point to another and claim that such a person is “arrogant” to follow their own beliefs and values. But on the flipside, it sounds arrogant to hear that comment. If someone is opposed to fitting their livestyle in conformity with another entity, even His Church, that means they don’t believe that such an entity is correct and right, and somehow made mistakes along the way.

That liberation is serving other than His will, even if it’s blindly and not realizing the error.

But I’m sure you understand that if it’s being done blindly and not realizing the error, that notion of 'liberation is serving other than His Will" is not recognized as true, regardless of whether it’s true or not.

I know when I was Protestant there were times I and others acknowledged loving Jesus therefore justifying not having to attend a weekly Church service so that we could enjoy some secular activity. I recognize the ‘blindness’ and not realizing the error now…

Yes, but now you do Many haven’t made it to “now” and some never will. They will remain in the religion (or non religion) of their choosing. Until “now” happens, an error isn’t acknowledged. As misguided as we believe such people are, the fact is, that’s how misguided they believe we are. Telling them they’re selfish, arrogant, or just plain old wrong, isn’t going to help.

Okay, an aside. Not saying this about you, but your reply above reminded me of something:

I’ve noticed a trend in those who say they used to do something else, before they found out it was wrong/forbidden/misguided, or even a mistake – and now they realize the “error” of their ways and have changed, and therefore so should everyone else. I never did understand how it was okay for them to make that mistake along their journey through life, but they can’t allow another to do so along their own journey. Yeah, I’m sure the intention is good. And of course we should share our trials and tirbulations and epiphanies with others. But IMOHO, that sounds awfully arrogant and selfish, "yeah, I used to do that too, but you can’t because I realized I was wrong. But because I now figured it out, you can’t make the choices that I made because I now figured it out. " It’s almost like saying, “do as I say, but not as I do or have done, because I know better than you and you don’t deserve to be able to make those choices anyway”.

Anyway, getting back on topic, I understand the notion of believing in Jesus, but separating Jesus from the Church. I know many Catholics think that’s an impossible way to think without being selfish and arrogant, but I think they think this way because they are Catholic. That’s one of our beliefs. We wouldn’t be Catholic if we didn’t think this way. Still one can’t expect another to believe in this teaching if they’re not Catholic — otherwise they’d be Catholic too.

 

[GaryTaylor]

That liberation is serving other than His will, even if it’s blindly and not realizing the error. I know when I was Protestant there were times I and others acknowledged loving Jesus therefore justifying not having to attend a weekly Church service so that we could enjoy some secular activity. I recognize the ‘blindness’ and not realizing the error now…

Me too when I fell away after years in the CC then College. That whole thinking. I can speak directly to God. I don’t have to devote my time or funds to His church. I’m tired today, worked all week, I"m not going to church on Sunday.

Regular become, sometimes which become rarely.

Thank God He allowed to me make the mistake and to learn a lesson be a hard one in the process.

But for me its a hand in hand process. The Church is manditory and the sacrements are a gift from God.

I do a daily Prayer devotion with the Rosary and often add others. I at least Pray the Rosary daily.

I seriously try to remain in that State of Grace today. I’m a sinner so I hit confession when needed. But it works this way I see myself stringing together periods of time where I am remaining in that state of grace.

It immediatly dawns on you “Wow what I can acccomplish doing Gods will and not mine”

I feel directed, focused and guided. I feel today I am being led and instructed. What it has done is changed my entire perception of eternal salvation. Made me accutely aware of the just how much we are caught inbetween two spiritual worlds.

Its almost as if God has said, I been waiting for you to return so I can help you.

God Bless, Gary

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m not convinced that is true. I’d have to find it again, but I read a history article where it said that there were various little offshoots even in the very early Church and that it wasn’t as universally one as people think it was. And even if it was… I can see how people branched out over time. In the scriptures there are no examples of others assuming a position of authority because of their own desiries for such a position, but I do know that in the past people have thought just that of bishops and previous popes. Depending on where one lived, and in which community, I’m sure that there were plenty of examples. Certainly the problems the Church has today has led many people to question the Church for those very reasons. And there are no examples in scripture of anyone disagreeing with a Church of one location and moving to a Church of another location for doctrinal differences, but that doesn’t mean that just because it wasn’t in scripture that it didn’t happen in communities.

I’d be interested in seeing the article, if you can find it.

I know in Acts 6 men were put forth by the ‘congregation’, but they were presented to the Apostles who prayed over them and imposed hands before assuming ‘offices’. There are other places in scriptures where we see some of authority prayed and imposed hands, or the act of imposed hands was mentioned, otherwise I’ve never seen examples presented of someone assuming, or appointing others, to positions of authority in the Church.

Scriptures also provides examples of the hierarchy of the Church, as set by God. Also, there are many examples in scriptures showing the Church was meant to be ONE.

I know the Church’s history and I always think back to when Christ told the people to 'observe and do whatsoever they, those that sat on the seat of Moses, said to them, but do not as they do. This seems to show God’s confidence that His truth could be protected through His structure, even through sinful men.

I can’t really blame them. Some teachings of the Church are difficult to swallow, let alone follow. Some people find certain teachings easy to follow, while others find them hard to follow but do follow them anyway, then there are those who just don’t follow them. Yes, you’re supposed to trust the Church to lead you, but the fact is, many don’t have that trust in the Church. It’s easy for someone to point to another and claim that such a person is “arrogant” to follow their own beliefs and values. But on the flipside, it sounds arrogant to hear that comment. If someone is opposed to fitting their livestyle in conformity with another entity, even His Church, that means they don’t believe that such an entity is correct and right, and somehow made mistakes along the way.

Hebrews 13:17, specifically, addresses obeying leaders and being subject to them, giving example to an authoritative Church.

Reading through scriptures, as a Catholic, I saw a difference in what Christ said to ‘multitudes’ and those He chose and appointed. Myself, I cannot see assuming everything He said to those He chose and appointed upon myself. I read those as instructions to the authority He set in His Church. I think a lot of people miss that context, which attributes to mistakes made.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

But I’m sure you understand that if it’s being done blindly and not realizing the error, that notion of 'liberation is serving other than His Will" is not recognized as true, regardless of whether it’s true or not.

Yes, but now you do Many haven’t made it to “now” and some never will. They will remain in the religion (or non religion) of their choosing. Until “now” happens, an error isn’t acknowledged. As misguided as we believe such people are, the fact is, that’s how misguided they believe we are. Telling them they’re selfish, arrogant, or just plain old wrong, isn’t going to help.

Okay, an aside. Not saying this about you, but your reply above reminded me of something:

I’ve noticed a trend in those who say they used to do something else, before they found out it was wrong/forbidden/misguided, or even a mistake – and now they realize the “error” of their ways and have changed, and therefore so should everyone else. I never did understand how it was okay for them to make that mistake along their journey through life, but they can’t allow another to do so along their own journey. Yeah, I’m sure the intention is good. And of course we should share our trials and tirbulations and epiphanies with others. But IMOHO, that sounds awfully arrogant and selfish, "yeah, I used to do that too, but you can’t because I realized I was wrong. But because I now figured it out, you can’t make the choices that I made because I now figured it out. " It’s almost like saying, “do as I say, but not as I do or have done, because I know better than you and you don’t deserve to be able to make those choices anyway”.

I do not fault those who are ‘blind’, or in error. It’s not my place. I only give examples from personal experience in hopes others can see how I came to my own decisions. If they benefit from that great; if not it’s the Holy Spirit’s place to lead hearts and the best I can hope for is that others, at the very least, understand Catholic teachings and how they are derived from scriptures, even if they disagree with the interpretation. I’m sure everyone here is aware of the persecution of Catholicism in the tones of many posts that ‘challenge’, or disagree with, Catholic doctrines/teachings/understandings. That causes some posts to be posted with tones of their own and that is not my intention.

Anyway, getting back on topic, I understand the notion of believing in Jesus, but separating Jesus from the Church. I know many Catholics think that’s an impossible way to think without being selfish and arrogant, but I think they think this way because they are Catholic. That’s one of our beliefs. We wouldn’t be Catholic if we didn’t think this way. Still one can’t expect another to believe in this teaching if they’re not Catholic — otherwise they’d be Catholic too.

I understand believing in Jesus, 24/7. I got that understanding through His Church.

That’s why we’re all here, to discuss theology and how understandings are arrived at. It’s not possible to post all in a single thread, much less a single post.

I believe Protestants truly believe and love Jesus. Spiritual growth doesn’t happen ‘snap’. It’s a process and some require milk before meat. Not everyone moves at the same speed, or experiences the growth process the same. That’s why Peter told us to share that hope within us, with modesty and fear, having a good conscience. The problem is communicating through writing, where inflections are misread, or misunderstood.

 

[Esdra]

Christ built an authoritative Church, on the Apostles He chose and appointed. Every Sunday may appear to be a ‘cultural’ thing to some, but they seem to fail to realize it’s a Christian cultural thing started by Christ Himself. It is the place to truly come to know Christ. Without it, one cheats himself of knowing Him truly and fully.

Christ walked among men during His ministry, who did not know Him. Christ told them the scriptures, they thought gave everlasting life, gave testimony of Him.

For those that do not think they need the Church, tell us who the leaders are that you are to obey, and be subject to, as the inspired word of God tells us in Hebrews 13:17? People can’t see an authoritative Church in scriptures, yet want to convince everyone they can fully see Christ in scriptures. He is the head of His Church.

In the Baptist and other anabaptist Churches there is no authority. There are principles and they define what is a Baptist Church and what a cult.
Some Baptists, at least here in Austria, have written them down and organised a loose alliance of Baptist Churches which are organised in World Alliances. - But, nevertheless, every Church is free, or better said only bound by the principles.

It’s different with Lutherans, Presbyterians and Reformed Evangelicals: They have their own catechisms and even more important their creeds (which can be compared to the Principles of the Baptist Church i.e.). And the creeds and so in the end the Reformators (Calvin Zwingli Luther etc.) are their authority.

Hope that helps.

in Christ,

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

In the Baptist and other anabaptist Churches there is no authority. There are principles and they define what is a Baptist Church and what a cult.
Some Baptists, at least here in Austria, have written them down and organised a loose alliance of Baptist Churches which are organised in World Alliances. - But, nevertheless, every Church is free, or better said only bound by the principles.

It’s different with Lutherans, Presbyterians and Reformed Evangelicals: They have their own catechisms and even more important their creeds (which can be compared to the Principles of the Baptist Church i.e.). And the creeds and so in the end the Reformators (Calvin Zwingli Luther etc.) are their authority.

Hope that helps.

in Christ,

Do you recognize Hebrews 13:17 as an example of an authoritative leadership within the Church?

 

[Hiskid1973]

In the Baptist and other anabaptist Churches there is no authority. There are principles and they define what is a Baptist Church and what a cult.
Some Baptists, at least here in Austria, have written them down and organised a loose alliance of Baptist Churches which are organised in World Alliances. - But, nevertheless, every Church is free, or better said only bound by the principles. In Christ,

Hey Brother, I see you from Austria…My grandfather (Arva) came from Austria in 1906
to Ellis island…He was in the Kaiser’s army(took care of the horses…God bless…

 

[Esdra]

Do you recognize Hebrews 13:17 as an example of an authoritative leadership within the Church?

"17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you. " (Hebrews 13:17, NASB)

Well, in Baptist Churches some kind of authority has the pastor and the elders…
In the Pentecostal Churches there is normally no authority at all!

But actually, I don’t really get your point.

Yes, this verse DOES speak of obeying the leaders…

a little bit

in Christ,