Which Church??

[steido01]

I don’t know, having never experienced either. I, frankly, prefer the historic Lutheran liturgy, including word and sacrament, and sprinkled with hymns such as “A Mighty Fortress”, “Thy Strong Word”, and “The Church’s One Foundation”.

But that’s me.

Jon

You, and a couple of others here.

 

[adawgj]

I don’t know, having never experienced either. I, frankly, prefer the historic Lutheran liturgy, including word and sacrament, and sprinkled with hymns such as “A Mighty Fortress”, “Thy Strong Word”, and “The Church’s One Foundation”.

But that’s me.

Jon

Yeah I’d go there if I was not Catholic, however where I live there are too many non denominationals.

 

[benhur]

And even if there were 30,000 denominations, BenHur, that would prove nothing.

I am wondering if we can learn at all from that which we all sprang from. Are most synagogues “autonomous” ? Were they when Jesus came? Were ther hundreds,thousands thru out the world ? Was not a synagogue a community of Jews for a particular location, with out authoritative ties to Jerusalem ? What bound them ? What diversity was allowed ? Would our 30000 congregations have enough conformity within themselves to still all be “Christian” ? Was there not diversity in Judaism and did Jesus pull his hair out over this ? He still claimed salvation is of the Jews ? Which Jews (Hassidic , Essenes, Herodians Zealots,Pharisees, Saducees) was Jesus talking about ?

 

[Protector]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protector View Post
Ah! Dear PR - who made you the judge?

PRmerger;12571445] Umm…we are commanded to judge, Protector.

Yes, but be mindful of the following caution,

“Judge not, that ye be not judged…For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” Matthew 7:1-2 (KJV)

PRmerger;12571445] All of us do (judge). Anyone who walks around life without making a single judgement is…well, a vapid, vacuous simpleton.

Protector “…plus years of exposure to the INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD, to Which and to Whom they are answerable.”

PRmerger; Please walk me through this, Protector. How is a man answerable to a Holy Book? How does that work?

**“to WHICH”…**In as much as, The WORD in the Holy Scriptures is inspired of God (The Holy Spirit), and any wilful deviation from that WORD is liable to incur the wrath of God, viz.

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8 (KJV)

And

"to WHOM"…In as much as,

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Jon 1:1 (KJV)

I incorporated both meanings of the expression, “The WORD” in one statement, thus making it:- “to WHICH and to WHOM he is answerable.”

I am “off-line” straight after this post so, Have a wonderful Christmas PR!

Protector.

 

[ltwin]

Which Church do Protestants align themselves with? . . . What is the Protestant “church?”

There has never been a single “Protestant church.” Protestants align themselves with the universal church through particular local and confessional bodies. Historically, there are two approaches that Protestants have taken in viewing the Church, the first originates out of the Magisterial Reformation (which includes the Lutheran, Anglican, and Reformed/Presbyterian territorial churches that were created in alignment with state regimes) and the Radical Reformation (which includes groups such as the Anabaptists who rejected the concept of a state or territorial church).

If we look at some confessions arising from the Magisterial Reformation, we can notice some commonalities. The Augsburg Confession (crafted by Lutherans), the 39 Articles (by Anglicans) and the Westminster Confession (by Presbyterians) rely on the concept of the “particular” or local church that exists as part of and alongside the catholic, universal church. In many ways, this is not that different from the way the Eastern Orthodox Church functions, with autonomous churches associated with particular territories, cultures, and people groups.

This pattern of emergent local or territorial churches had already been in the process before the Reformation even began. There was a lot of resentment of the Roman Church, both from religious abuses, interference with secular rulers, incompetent secular rule by bishops, and the imposition of church taxes.

As explained by historian Diarmaid MacCulloch in The Reformation: A History, p. 51:

All this means that in many areas of central Europe, well before the Reformation upheavals, Landeskirchen or locally run churches were quietly emerging. The development was backed by the assumption that the local magistrate had a responsibility to play the leading part in Church life, an assumption readily to be found in the catechisms (simple summaries of doctrine) which people were taught in their churches . . . The result was a local version of conciliarism; or one could view it as a steady return to the balance of power in the Church that had existed before the eleventh and twelfth-century Gregorian revolution. Princes and city council boasted of being pope in their own jurisdictions: the prince was after all the father of his territory (Landesvater). With the trend in late medieval central Europe for local secular rulers to take more and more power and responsibility way from leading churchmen, it was not surprising that the first reformers in the 1520s looked to princes rather than bishops or abbots to undertake a new round of reforms in the Church, or that much of the Reformation continued to develop with the assumption that the godly prince was the natural agent of religious revolution.

According to Article 7 of the Augsburg Confession (Lutheran)

*1] Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.

2] And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and 3] the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. 4] As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4:5-6. *

Article 19 of the 39 Articles of Religion (Church of England)

*The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith
*

From the same confession, Article 34

It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s Word. Whosoever through his private judgement, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.
Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority, so that all things be done to edifying.

 

[ltwin]

Continued from previous post.

Chapter 25 of the Westminster Confession of Faith (Presbyterian)

*I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.[1]

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[4] the house and family of God,[5] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[6]

III. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.[7]

IV. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible.[8] And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.[9]*

V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error;[10] and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.[11] Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.[12] . . .

Traditions coming out of the Radical Reformation tended to reject the idea of a territorial church completely. Most notable are the Baptists, whose confessions explicitly rejected the idea of a church-state connection. The Baptist concept of the Church is explained in detail in Chapter 27 of the Philadelphia Confession (1742):

*. . . All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ, according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any error, everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints;2 and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.3 . . .

The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order, or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner . . .

In the execution of this power wherewith He is so intrusted, the Lord Jesus calleth out of the world unto Himself, through the ministry of His Word, by His Spirit, those that are given unto Him, by His Father,9 that they may walk before Him in all the ways of obedience, which He prescribeth to them in His Word.10 Those thus called, He commandeth to walk together in particular societies, or churches, for their mutual edification, and the due performance of that public worship, which He requireth of them in the world.11 . . .

To each of these churches thus gathered according to His mind, declared in His Word, He hath given all that power and authority, which is any way needful for their carrying on that order in worship and discipline, which He hath instituted for them to observe, with commands and rules, for the due and right exerting, and executing of that power.14

A particular church, gathered and completely organized according to the mind of Christ, consists of officers and members; and the officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church, so called and gathered, for the peculiar administration of ordinances, and execution of power or duty, which He entrusts them with, or calls them to, to be continued to the end of the world, are bishops, or elders, and deacons.15 . . .

Although it be incumbent on the bishops or pastors of the churches, to be instant in preaching the Word, by way of office, yet the work of preaching the Word is not so peculiarly confined to them, but that others also gifted, and fitted by the Holy Spirit for it, and approved and called by the church, may and ought to perform it.24

As all believers are bound to join themselves to particular churches, when and where they have opportunity so to do; so all that are admitted unto the privileges of a church, are also under the censures and government thereof, according to the rule of Christ.25 . . . .

As each church, and all the members of it . . . ought to hold communion among themselves, for their peace, increase of love, and mutual edification.28

. . . it is according to the mind of Christ, that many churches holding communion together, do by their messenger, meet to consider, and give their advice in or about the matter in difference, to be reported to all the churches concerned;29 howbeit these messengers assembled, are not intrusted with any church power, properly so called; or with any jurisdiction over the churches themselves, to exercise any censures either over any churches, or persons; or to impose their determination on the churches or officers.30*

As you can see, instead of a territorial church with connections to the state in which everyone was expected to be a member through baptism, Baptists understood the church in terms of local congregations of believers voluntarily gathered together for worship, instruction, and discipleship. These congregations were self-governing under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, but they also eagerly establish communion with congregations of like precious faith.

 

[JonNC]

Yeah I’d go there if I was not Catholic, however where I live there are too many non denominationals.

And I’d join you if non-denominationals, etc. were the only other choice.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well after the Scriptures were written- under the divine guidance of almighty God, not the bishops

There is no question that the scriptures were inspired by God.

But the men whom He inspired were all members of the one Body of Christ which had begun to call itself the “Catholic Church” within the lifetime of the last living Apostle, John and well within the lifetime of Clement who was mentioned in Corinthians. Here’s the full story:

The early Church - the Church founded by Christ as promised in Matthew 16:18 - was that which was originally known as “the Way” (cf. Acts 24:14). Later, those individuals who followed Christ began to be called “Christians” beginning at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26). As early as 107 A.D., those same individuals referred to themselves collectively as the “Catholic Church”. In a letter to the Church of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch wrote, “You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery (priest) as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])

Notice that Ignatius does not introduce the term “Catholic Church”; instead he uses it in a manner suggesting that the name was already in use and familiar to his audience. This further suggests that the name, Catholic Church, had to have been coined much earlier in order to have achieved wide circulation by the time of this writing. In other words, the Christian assembly was calling itself the Catholic Church during the lifetime of the last Apostle, John, who died near the end of the first century. John, the beloved disciple, may have thought of himself as a member of the Catholic Church!

The Catholic Church began with Peter and the Apostles and continued without interruption or cessation through their disciples (Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, etc.) down to the present day. As a side note, it appears that the believers in Antioch may have coined both terms still in use today: “Christian” and “Catholic Church” – terms they used to describe the one body of believers in Christ.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You can insist it’s not a denomination but as long as it maintains it is the sole “depository of faith” to the exclusion of all other Christians who don’t happen to belong to the RCC- it is most definitely a denomination. 'Nuff said!

There are two problems with what you have written:

1. Catholics don’t claim that “it is the sole “depository of faith” to the exclusion of all other Christians who don’t happen to belong to the RCC.”
2. There is only one body of Christ, the Church, and that Church has a name by which it has been known since the end of the first century as I explained in my last post - the “Catholic Church”.

So, all Christians are either formally or informally members of the Catholic Church. Obviously, the latter group simply doesn’t know it.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

To the extent that Luther’s writing are in agreement with the confessions, we accept his writings.
To the extent they do not, we reject them.
Luther supported Augsburg.
It is a fact that, throughout history, good Catholics went to the grave not believing things that were later declared articles of faith. If Luther after Augsburg taught things contrary to Augsburg, then he was wrong.

With all due respect Jon, my questions dealt specifically with Luther and Lutheranism’s completely different approach to the authority of the Church and the ‘right’ of the individual to interpret Scripture. Your response did not deal with that question at all.

You say that Lutheranism will reject anything that Luther taught that is not in conformance with the confessions, which I guess then prompts the question as to why it is presumed that the confessions are the correct representation of the Gospel.

You say that:

“If Luther after Augsburg taught things contrary to Augsburg, then he was wrong.”

But Jon – what if what Luther taught BEFORE Augsburg was denied by Augsburg? Wouldn’t that mean, according to your paradigm, that Luther was wrong BEFORE Augsburg. And if so, give n Luther’s ‘influence’ during the time, doesn’t that call into question the Augsburg Confession itself?

As you know Jon, prior to Augsburg, and for about the first 5 or so of his “Reformation”, until about 1525, Luther taught the “Right” of the individual to privately interpret Scripture. Would you say that he was wrong to teach that or not?

The way I break this down is rather simple.

1. The Catholic Church has ALWAYS taught that the Church and not the individual is responsible for doctrine.
2. Luther disagreed with the Catholic Church and claimed that his personal interpretations provided for better Christian doctrines than those taught by the Catholic Church.
3. In asserting his personal authority to refute the Church, Luther also taught that ALL individuals had the right to (correctly) interpret Scripture.
4. In the process of refuting the Catholic Church Luther established a separate Christian communion which today bears his name.
5. Within a few decades after Luther’s initial Revolt, Lutheranism formally denied Luther’s teaching on Private Interpretation, claiming that IT ONLY was authorized to decide on doctrinal matters.

We should notice that when Lutheranism claims that it is the church that is responsible for doctrine it is NOT speaking (whatsoever) of the Catholic Church, the Church from which it sprung.

As such, how can we not recognize the contradiction between the teachings of Lutheranism and the teachings of it’s founder on such a critical issue?

It would seem that if Luther had followed the teachings of either the Catholic Church (of which he was a member, Priest, Theologian, etc.), or the (later) teachings of the Lutheran church on doctrine NOT being a matter for individuals, the Lutheran church would not exist. The evidence here suggests that, according to the doctrinal teachings of both the Lutheran and Catholic churches, Lutheranism SHOULD NOT have been founded.

Jon, with all due respect, if you see this situation differently, of if you think I don’t have my facts straight, please explain specifically and exactly how.

Lutherans are not particularly fond of denominationalism, either.

Jon, I am struck by the irony here.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Faithdancer]

Same old impasse here, apparently. I will never again recognize the authority of the magisterium over my faith life- been there, done that.

Anyway, how ‘bout them Cowboys? I’m bettin’ that all the RC’s on this thread are Philly fans, if they follow football…

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12576222]

With all due respect Jon, my questions dealt specifically with Luther and Lutheranism’s completely different approach to the authority of the Church and the ‘right’ of the individual to interpret Scripture. Your response did not deal with that question at all.

My response dealt with the Lutheran approach to private interpretation.

“If Luther after Augsburg taught things contrary to Augsburg, then he was wrong.”

But Jon – what if what Luther taught BEFORE Augsburg was denied by Augsburg? Wouldn’t that mean, according to your paradigm, that Luther was wrong BEFORE Augsburg. And if so, give n Luther’s ‘influence’ during the time, doesn’t that call into question the Augsburg Confession itself?

Only if one believes the illogical notion that if someone is wrong about one thing, they must be wrong about everything.

Jon

 

[Chong]

Mark 9:38: And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followed us not: and we forbade him, because he followed not us.
Mark 9:39: But Jesus said, Forbade him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

Jesus was asked a similar question of those who were not among his group, and His answer was amazing in that he never condemned ‘them’ since they were not speaking evil of Him. Likewise, even today those who exalt Christ in whatever church group they are, they belong to Christ.

In Rev 20:12, we read "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Rev 20:15: And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

After resurrection, people will be judged according to what they did.
The ultimate judgement will be whether one’s is written in the book of life, if not he’s thrown in the lake of fire. If this is the Lord’s standard, then it should be the yardstick instead of which church?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Same old impasse here, apparently. I will never again recognize the authority of the magisterium over my faith life- been there, done that.

I’m not sure what the source of your obvious resentment is, but I can show you the source of the Catholic Church’s God-given authority FROM SCRIPTURE:

You agree that Jesus is our king, right? But did He re-establish the office of the Royal Steward? Let’s take a look:

In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward or prime minister) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:

Isaiah 22:20-22
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

In the passage above, God is speaking, and He confirms the existence of the office, the key, and the continuation of the office despite the change of office holder. In other words, the office of the royal steward continued even when the man who held the office died or was replaced by someone else. God Himself passes the key from one steward to the next.

In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus inherits the throne of his father, David.

Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.

We also read the following:

Matthew 16:13-19
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

The passage quoted above from Matthew tells us that Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority to speak in His name. Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never end. Peter died as a martyr as Jesus foretold, but the successors of Peter have taken his place in the perpetual office that Jesus established in His royal court.

In addition to the reference to a key or keys, note the following parallels:

"What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Is. 22:22)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)

Jesus specifically referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter, and Peter received authority from Jesus to speak universally in His name. To do so faithfully, Peter must not teach error; therefore, Peter (and his successors who hold the office of the Royal Steward - also known as the Bishop of Rome) are protected by God through the charism of infallibility.

 

[pablope]

Same old impasse here, apparently. I will never again recognize the authority of the magisterium over my faith life- been there, done that.

A

So in essence…you substituted the Magisterium of the Church for your own authority…so you youself determine what you want to believe and not believe…in essence, you are your own Magisterium and pope rolled into yourself…basically speaking.

 

[adf417]

So in essence…you substituted the Magisterium of the Church for your own authority…so you youself determine what you want to believe and not believe…in essence, you are your own Magisterium and pope rolled into yourself…basically speaking.

You would think Paul and Barnabas would have exercised this same authority in Acts 15:
2. and save themselves a trip up the hill.

Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question. Acts 15:2

Peace!!!

 

[Randy_Carson]

So in essence…you substituted the Magisterium of the Church for your own authority…so you youself determine what you want to believe and not believe…in essence, you are your own Magisterium and pope rolled into yourself…basically speaking.

PRIVATE JUDGMENT.

That is the sand upon which Protestantism is built.

 

[Contarini]

Only in the same sense that it applies to every single, Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, what have you. What can any communion do to members who leave (or in Fr. Martin’s case, are booted out)?

Luther chose to elevate his own theological opinions to the level of the Gospel. I don’t claim that this can be known a priori to be wrong. Perhaps he might have been right. But he wasn’t–and all Protestants except confessional Lutherans believe he wasn’t. More to the point, since you are a confessional Lutheran, if he was right then “Rome” had denied the Gospel. So why is it relevant whether he was “booted out”? By your doctrinal standards, shouldn’t someone believing what Catholics believe be booted out?

In other words: either Rome had really denied the essentials of the faith, in which case the argument that he was “booted out” is irrelevant, or Rome hadn’t, in which case he could have avoided being booted out by exercising a little humility.

What course of action would you have suggested for Paul, Nikolaus, Athanasius, Catherine, or Martin if not to defy corrupt teachers? Or for application in today’s world, what would you recommend for today’s Catholic if their bishop, as occasionally happens, fails to address heretical teachings and practices within their diocese?

You challenge the heresy in the name of the Church, recognizing that you might be wrong.

Edwin

 

[steido01]

So why is it relevant whether he was “booted out”?

Sorry for the ambiguity, Edwin. I should clarify: I don’t care about the manner by which one leaves/is removed from a given group; my point in noting that he was booted was simply to nip the inaccurate and polemical point that was being made by another poster. The purpose of my post was to show simply that when an individual is no longer part of a group -however that came to be- then that group is no longer responsible for their actions. If that is not the case, then the Catholic Church is responsible for all the divisions in Western Christendom. I do not imagine that is a position you’d intend to defend.

More to the point, since you are a confessional Lutheran, if he was right then “Rome” had denied the Gospel. So why is it relevant whether he was “booted out”? By your doctrinal standards, shouldn’t someone believing what Catholics believe be booted out?

Precisely. You sniffed out my next point. It doesn’t matter which side kept the house in the divorce. Had the bishop of Rome, for some unimaginable hypothetical reason, sided with the Lutheran cause, or had Rome been conquered by some Lutheran army and Luther himself placed on Peter’s chair with all the proper observance, pomp and rites, today’s Tridentine Catholics would be making the same argument that Lutherans (and, to some small extent, even Catholic sedavacantist groups) make today – that right teaching makes our teachers authoritative, not in which city our bishop happens to place his throne.

Christians have a responsibility, like Luther and those I’ve previously named, to call out false teachers. And so, we continue to do so until we can achieve unity.

 

[chero23]

Mark 9:38: And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followed us not: and we forbade him, because he followed not us.
Mark 9:39: But Jesus said, Forbade him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

Jesus was asked a similar question of those who were not among his group, and His answer was amazing in that he never condemned ‘them’ since they were not speaking evil of Him. Likewise, even today those who exalt Christ in whatever church group they are, they belong to Christ.

In Rev 20:12, we read "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Rev 20:15: And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

After resurrection, people will be judged according to what they did.
The ultimate judgement will be whether one’s is written in the book of life, if not he’s thrown in the lake of fire. If this is the Lord’s standard, then it should be the yardstick instead of which church?

The Bible also states that you will be judged on based on what you know and what you did with it. If you know and see in the Bible, that Jesus was speaking literally in regards to the bread and wine, but yet deny it, then your denying him. Yes at the end of the day, you will be judged on what you did, but that comes with what you know. Remember theirs people still today that who cannot read and write. A lot are from other religions, they might never know about Christ, are they going to hell? Not necessarily because they were told about him.

Now, if you know God wants this this and this, and you still go against it, guess what, even if you donate all your money at the end of the day I think it might give you some problems because you ignored the truth and put your feelings first.