Denominations?

[horsecamp]

Let no one imagine that in and of itself it is wrong when Christians let themselves be named after a man. This is shown undeniably by the fact that the church of the Old Testament was named by God himself after a man. What did He call them? - the Israelites. Didn't Christ himself say of Nathaniel: "See, a true Israelite, in whom there is nothing false." What was Israel? He was a man. Therefore it is clear, it depends on the sense in which the children of God are named after a man. In that alone can there be sin. In which sense and on what grounds did the Corinthians name themselves of Paul, of Apollo, of Safes, of Christ? In this fashion, as we can read, they wanted to separate themselves from one another. Although Paul, Apollo, and Peter (or Safes) taught one and the same thing, the Corinthians rejected the others when they chose one. They separated themselves from one another by taking on a name and setting up factions. The sin for which Paul rebukes the Corinthians exists not only in that they named themselves after a man but instead that by doing this among those who had the same orthodox doctrine they wanted to establish divisions. Therefore the apostle himself rejects the name "of Christ" as the name of a sect (which some of them were using) when they wanted to establish division with it. Paul does this even though this last name is not taken from a man but from the Son of God himself. Now true Lutherans have never named themselves after Luther in this forbidden sense. With this their name they have never wanted to depart or separate from other orthodox teachers. They declare their allegiance as Lutherans to Athenasius and all true teachers of the Gospel in all times and lands just as much as to Luther. Luther himself was far from wanting to be the only true teacher. He publicly writes among other things about a friend, the Würtemburg theologian Brentius: "I value your books so highly that my books entirely stink when I compare them to your books and those like them. I am not mocking you here. I am not dreaming and I am not saying something to insult you. I will not be deceived by my judgment, for I am not praising Brentius, but the Spirit that is in you is much friendlier, and full of love and joy than the spirit in me." Certainly no one speaks this way if he is trying to lead a sect. But Luther speaks this way because he wants to be nothing more than a witness of the truth.

read the whole thing here it is in public domain


Concerning the Name "Lutheran"
C.F.W. Walther
Translated by Mark Nispel
From: Der Lutheraner v. 1, pp. 2-4, 5-7, 9-12.
June, 1994




http://www.reclaimingwalther.org/articles/nameLuth.htm

 

[TexUs]

Maybe you all need to take a step nack and ask Jesus, which is the right church, which preaches the full truth. The answer would be without a doubt, the ony one that is true is the one that I ( Christ ) am building, all mens church, no matter what tiltle you put to it are wrong. How can Christ be one thing in one and something else in another, how can Christ sound like a anglican in one church and like a SDA in another, or a catholic or a protestant. Christ is Christ, He will only ever sound like, look like and act like Christ. There is no church on thsi earth today that fullfilss that. Not one.

Let's not follow Apollos or Paul, but Christ........ yes.
But you must not use that as an excuse to not to attend a community of believers, which is just as unbiblical.

 

[marksman]

whats this about infighting? yes there is in fighting amoung lutherans in the same congregation -----------and I bet you and your wife had fights or you and your mom and dad had fights

And I believe that some Lutheran congregations have seperated themselves because HQ have decided to accept homosexuals into the ministry.

I have been married 41 years and we have never had one single fight. I never knew my mum and dad.

how would you like it if i said ------------you must not be a true family because there was a lot of infighting amoung you ..

A comment like that is known as a red herring. An attempt to distract people from the truth.

But you must not use that as an excuse to not to attend a community of believers, which is just as unbiblical.

I may be wrong but I don't think so, you will find that all those that attend Sunday morning services in a public building are unbiblical. The biblical ones are those who meet in homes.

 

[TexUs]

I may be wrong but I don't think so, you will find that all those that attend Sunday morning services in a public building are unbiblical. The biblical ones are those who meet in homes.

Acts 2:46.
Please tell me where they gathered.

You see they gathered in both a formal building (That will eliminate your argument that gathering on Sunday is unbiblical) as well as in homes (Small groups).

Hebrews 10:25 obviously speaks toward the need to gather together. Like I said, not fellowshipping at all because of denominational labeling isn't Biblical, either.

If you meet in a home and not a building that's OK, as long as you're meeting. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with meeting in a building on Sunday.

 

[horsecamp]

And I believe that some Lutheran congregations have seperated themselves because HQ have decided to accept homosexuals into the ministry.

I have been married 41 years and we have never had one single fight. I never knew my mum and dad.



A comment like that is known as a red herring. An attempt to distract people from the truth.



I may be wrong but I don't think so, you will find that all those that attend Sunday morning services in a public building are unbiblical. The biblical ones are those who meet in homes.

your right Homosexuality is sinful its against what scriptures teach ----------------- ------------------------------ IF ITS NOT SCRIPTUAL--------------------- ITS REALLY NOT LUTHERAN.

so now we both have ----------posted red hearrings

 

[Duckybill]

Matthew 18:20 (NKJV)
[sup]20 [/sup]For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them."

 

[marksman]

your right Homosexuality is sinful its against what scriptures teach ----------------- ------------------------------ IF ITS NOT SCRIPTUAL--------------------- ITS REALLY NOT LUTHERAN.

Despite being in denial about the Lutherans who are accepting homosexuals into ministry, it doesn't alter the fact, despite any amount of protestation.

 

[marksman]

You see they gathered in both a formal building (That will eliminate your argument that gathering on Sunday is unbiblical) as well as in homes (Small groups).

No it does not as the NT church never met on Sunday.

One. if they met in the temple it would have been on the Sabbath, meaning Saturday.

Two. Jews worked six days a week as in "six days shalt though labour" and the seventh day they should rest. Therefore Sunday was a normal working day.

Three. It was only the Jewish church that met in temple. The gentile church did not.

Four. The reason they met in the temple was to spread the good news of Jesus Christ, not for fellowship, prayer, teaching and meals. That means that when the church met to function as a body, it was always in homes as these verses will indicate...

Act 8:3 But Saul ravaged the church, entering into every house. And dragging men and women, he delivered them up to prison.

Rom 16:5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Greet my beloved Epenetus, who is the first-fruits of Achaia to Christ.

1Co 16:19 The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Priscilla greet you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.

Col 4:15 Greet the brothers who are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church in his house.

Phm 1:2 and to Apphia the beloved, and to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in your house.

Hebrews 10:25 obviously speaks toward the need to gather together. Like I said, not fellowshipping at all because of denominational labeling isn't Biblical, either.

I think that you will find that this verse refers to meeting in homes in the Greek. If you meet in buildings, you are forsaking meeting together. Being in the same room doesn't mean you are meeting. It means that you are together to perform some specific rituals. In actual fact, those that meet in "buildings", especially when the numbers are in their hundreds or thousands can go a whole year and never MEET most of those who attend. I don't consider "hallo brother how are you" constitutes meeting people.

But there's absolutely nothing wrong with meeting in a building on Sunday.

No of course not if you are not interested what the scripture clearly teaches, not one or two verses as you have done with your reference to meeting in the temple in Acts 2. For me, no argument is valid if it is based on one verse of scripture as I have been taught that the best commentary on the bible is the bible, so you will always find scripture that backs up other scriptures if that is the revelation of God. Apart from the fact that you will not find one verse, let alone several that says the NT church met on Sunday. In fact it is almost impossible as the NT church was a sect of Judaism, not a seperate faith, so they did not give up their Judaism so meeting on Saturday in the temple would have been the norm and working on Sunday the norm.

 

[TexUs]

Matthew 18:20 (NKJV)
[sup]20 [/sup]For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them."

While I agree with what you're trying to say that passage is dealing with church discipline

No it does not as the NT church never met on Sunday.

One. if they met in the temple it would have been on the Sabbath, meaning Saturday.

For Pete sake, your argument is on what DAY they meet? In case you COMPLETELY missed what's said in Acts 2:46, let me quote it.
And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts


Hmmm... So your Sabbath, Saturday, Sunday nonsense is just that: nonsense. You obviously didn't even read it.

Three. It was only the Jewish church that met in temple. The gentile church did not.

To say this you must limit this passage to Jewish only. Can you do that? You'd also be limiting the Holy Spirit to the Jews only, if you do so, is that what you're saying?

Four. The reason they met in the temple was to spread the good news of Jesus Christ, not for fellowship, prayer, teaching and meals.

What the hell do you think breaking bread and receiving food means????


You obviously didn't read it.


And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts

I think that you will find that this verse refers to meeting in homes in the Greek. If you meet in buildings, you are forsaking meeting together.

Nope. "hieron" means sacred place, which was the temple. You obviously didn't read it.
In fact I know you haven't because you are just regurgitating my comment of it being in a formal building- which actually wasn't in the text (temple/sacred place, was in the text). It's abundantly clear you didn't even read it.

 

[marksman]

Hmmm... So your Sabbath, Saturday, Sunday nonsense is just that: nonsense. You obviously didn't even read it.

What I read was your comment that the church met on Sunday which is used to justify us meeting on Sunday.

To say this you must limit this passage to Jewish only. Can you do that? You'd also be limiting the Holy Spirit to the Jews only, if you do so, is that what you're saying?

What I am saying is that there is no reference or evidence that the gentile church met in the temple. I was corrected on this as I claimed what you did.

What the hell do you think breaking bread and receiving food means????

It means eating meals together and I didn't need any help from hell to find this out.

And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts

I am not sure what you are getting at here.

Nope. "hieron" means sacred place, which was the temple. You obviously didn't read it.

The word "hieron"does not appear in the verse.

 

[TexUs]

What I read was your comment that the church met on Sunday which is used to justify us meeting on Sunday.

I used it to justify meeting together in a formal building.
I can care less what day it's on.

What I am saying is that there is no reference or evidence that the gentile church met in the temple.

Acts 21:27+


In fact we know from History that the emperor actually had to exile some Jews because they didn't like all the Gentiles in the church and they (the Jews) were causing disruption. We see this commented on in Acts 18:2, it just doesn't go into the detail (the why) the historians did.

It means eating meals together and I didn't need any help from hell to find this out.

So you admit you contradict yourself?


"Four. The reason they met in the temple was to spread the good news of Jesus Christ, not for fellowship, prayer, teaching and meals."
"It means eating meals together"


You don't consider eating with fellow believers to be fellowship? You don't consider attendance to the temple daily, fellowship? You don't consider meeting in homes, fellowship?

The word "hieron"does not appear in the verse.

καθ᾿ ἡμέραν τε προσκαρτεροῦντες ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, κλῶντές τε κατ᾿ οἶκον ἄρτον, μετελάμβανον τροφῆς ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει καὶ ἀφελότητι καρδίας,
http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/2411.htm

 

[Larry Conlley]

"Apostle Paul said we are all to speak the "same thing", that we are to be joined together with the same mind and in the same judgment. Yet the divisions started even in his days..."

I am thinking that Paul had a hard time practicing what he preached.

And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;

 

[marksman]

used it to justify meeting together in a formal building. I can care less what day it's on.

It doesn't alter the fact that you said the church met on Sunday which it didn't so you are not concerned so much with what the scripture says. A good guess seems to be OK. Apart from the fact that you still insisted they met on a Sunday in the Temple.

In fact we know from History that the emperor actually had to exile some Jews because they didn't like all the Gentiles in the church and they (the Jews) were causing disruption. We see this commented on in Acts 18:2, it just doesn't go into the detail (the why) the historians did.

I prefer evidence from scripture first. Acts 18:2 isn't it and you don't build a truth from one verse of scripture.

So you admit you contradict yourself?

No

You don't consider eating with fellow believers to be fellowship? You don't consider attendance to the temple daily, fellowship? You don't consider meeting in homes, fellowship?

No for the simple reason the scriptures do not. If it was, they would not have listed fellowship as a different activity to the other three. I am not in the habit of putting my own spin on scripture. I prefer to take what it says without interpretation.

καθ᾿ ἡμέραν τε προσκαρτεροῦντες ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, κλῶντές τε κατ᾿ οἶκον ἄρτον, μετελάμβανον τροφῆς ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει καὶ ἀφελότητι καρδίας,
http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/2411.htm

Heb 10:25 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as a custom of certain is , but exhorting, and so much the more as ye see the day coming nigh. I have checked your link and this verse is not listed as having the word "hieron" in it. As you can see from the verse, there is no mention of temples.

"Apostle Paul said we are all to speak the "same thing", that we are to be joined together with the same mind and in the same judgment. Yet the divisions started even in his days..." I am thinking that Paul had a hard time practicing what he preached.

Nice try but proof texting is not the stuff of serious study. Try again but put your quote in context.

 

[veteran]

veteran,
Part of what you have said is true but there is still a time when we need to separate ourselves from those that teach a lie and there are many that teach a lie these days.
2Co 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 2Co 6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

That's the problem. Many brethren have still yet to recognize the origin of divisions within Christ's Body. It's simply from the workings of 'this' world by Satan's servants that are hidden. And its success is because of our carnal nature.

But when Apostle Paul stated there must be heresies among Christ's Body that those approved of God would be manifest, that shows there does exist a true Christian Doctrine that is to be contended for. Does that belong to any one Church group today? No, it belongs to all Christ's Body. How is it confirmed? By staying in all of God's Holy Writ, Which is The Measure.

But how many Churches today are teaching all of God's Word? Not that many of them. Lot of brethren just can't believe that preachers can exist within Christ's Body that were not called by God. Yet our Lord Jesus even warned us about the "hireling" within His Body of believers that creeps in, like wolves in sheep's clothing (John 10). Paul warned about that, Peter warned about that also, especially for the last days.

God's prophecy through Amos that the days would come when God would send a famine is upon us; not a famine for food or drink, but a famine of hearing the words of The LORD, looking everywhere for it and not finding it; the fair virgins and young men faint for thirst (Amos 8).

So who is thirsty for God's Word and not finding It? Then seek It 'from' The LORD through His Son, and not from man. That's what we are to do today.

Does that mean we shouldn't attend a Church that won't cover all of God's Word line upon line? Not necessarily; there might be work our Lord Jesus wants us to do there. That doesn't mean a believer has to partake in all things done there in the name of the denomination. With Christ's Messages to five of the seven Churches that had problems per His Revelation, He didn't put any other burden on innocent members within those Churches than to keep separate from works that had caused their Church problems. That shows our Lord Jesus well knew there would be problems among the Churches, and to not lose hope, but for those guilty to repent and make a correction.

 

[TexUs]

It doesn't alter the fact that you said the church met on Sunday which it didn't so you are not concerned so much with what the scripture says. A good guess seems to be OK. Apart from the fact that you still insisted they met on a Sunday in the Temple.

Is that what I said or are you lying through your teeth? Let me quote the only two times I used the word Sunday besides when I've been arguing with you over it.


"I'm sorry but even if you were to open up Dallas Cowboys Stadium for Sunday Morning services you'd never fit everyone in the area into it."
"So what's that relegate the church to? Sunday Morning Worship Show??? Because then after that and during the week, everyone meets in homes for small groups, once again- divided because of numbers."



In neither of these cases is Sunday what my point was.

I prefer evidence from scripture first. Acts 18:2 isn't it and you don't build a truth from one verse of scripture.

http://www.textexcavation.com/suetoniustestimonium.html
Read the historical account of it.
"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Christ], he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome"


It's history. The Jews were expelled by Claudius. This would've happened at least ten years prior (Acts written around 64AD, Claudius died in 54AD)


Acts 18:2 is referring to this. It specifically names this event, it just doesn't go into the "Why" because the writer of Acts obviously didn't think it necessary to state.

No

So you don't consider this a contradiction? I think I and everyone else that can read, would.


"Four. The reason they met in the temple was to spread the good news of Jesus Christ, not for fellowship, prayer, teaching and meals."
"It means eating meals together"

No for the simple reason the scriptures do not. If it was, they would not have listed fellowship as a different activity to the other three. I am not in the habit of putting my own spin on scripture. I prefer to take what it says without interpretation.

But it does. Breaking of bread and praying defines fellowship. Notice the commas. These are not three separate events.
There are only two events. "Teaching" and "Fellowship". "breaking bread and prayers" is defining one of those events.
The punctuation and grammar would be different if this were broke apart but it is not so. Breaking bread, praying, is defining fellowship.
"And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers."

I have checked your link and this verse is not listed as having the word "hieron" in it.

Then you didn't look at it.

 

[marksman]

marksman, on 18 January 2011 - 02:32 AM, said: I have checked your link and this verse is not listed as having the word "hieron" in it.

Then you didn't look at it.

Neither did you. I checked every verse in your link that contains the word and Hebrews 10:25 is not listed.

 

[marksman]

But it does. Breaking of bread and praying defines fellowship. Notice the commas. These are not three separate events. There are only two events. "Teaching" and "Fellowship". "breaking bread and prayers" is defining one of those events.The punctuation and grammar would be different if this were broke apart but it is not so. Breaking bread, praying, is defining fellowship."And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers."

Act 2:42 They continually devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles, to fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and to times of prayer.

(ISV) They continually devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles, to fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and to times of prayer

(KJV) And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

(MKJV) And they were continuing steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine, and in fellowship and in the breaking of the loaves, and in prayers.

(Webster) And they continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

(YLT) and they were continuing stedfastly in the teaching of the apostles, and the fellowship, and the breaking of the bread, and the prayers.

(BBE) And they kept their attention fixed on the Apostles' teaching and were united together in the taking of broken bread and in prayer

(KJV) And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers

Not one translation agrees with you. .

 

[TexUs]

Neither did you. I checked every verse in your link that contains the word and Hebrews 10:25 is not listed.

It's Acts 2:46. Maybe this was a confusion on my part. I missed you switching to a passage from Hebrews way back when, I now see, I thought you were still talking about Acts so I continued on with it.


"And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts"


The fact is still that they attended a corporate place together, not just homes.

Act 2:42 They continually devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles, to fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and to times of prayer.

(ISV) They continually devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles, to fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and to times of prayer

(KJV) And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

(MKJV) And they were continuing steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine, and in fellowship and in the breaking of the loaves, and in prayers.

(Webster) And they continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

(YLT) and they were continuing stedfastly in the teaching of the apostles, and the fellowship, and the breaking of the bread, and the prayers.

(BBE) And they kept their attention fixed on the Apostles' teaching and were united together in the taking of broken bread and in prayer

(KJV) And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers

Not one translation agrees with you. .

Yeah, not one of the translations YOU posted agrees with me.
I notice you omitted any modern translation. I even notice you didn't even quote the most popular translation around, coincidence, or you just refusing to face this?


NIV: They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
ESV: And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
NASB: They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

I really can't give you a lesson on Greek right here but I suggest looking at the Greek and at least seeing where the comma is placed. All three of my quoted translations are accurate.


Fact remains, again, "to the breaking of bread and the prayers" is defining what was said, the fellowship.

 

[marksman]

The fact is still that they attended a corporate place together, not just homes.

Can you tell me how they ate meals together in the temple?

Fact remains, again, "to the breaking of bread and the prayers" is defining what was said, the fellowship.

Funny that my senior lecturer at Bible College was a converted Jew, but he didn't know this.

 

[marksman]

Fact remains, again, "to the breaking of bread and the prayers" is defining what was said, the fellowship.

fellowship
Original Word: κοινωνία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: koinónia
Phonetic Spelling: (koy-nohn-ee'-ah)
Short Definition: participation, communion, fellowship
Definition: (lit: partnership) (a) contributory help, participation, (B) sharing in, communion, (c) spiritual fellowship, a fellowship in the spirit.

No mention of prayer or teaching. It sounds to me that it denotes a sharing of the common life which could include preparing food, spiritual fellowship as in exhortation, participation in the life of the family of God.