WHERE IS TRUTH?

[Ronald David Bruno]

Why are there over 30,000 registered Protestant denominations?

Those are just titles, labels, sub-titles, "We are a little different than the church down the street, we are casual, they dress up, we practice spiritual gifts, they don't, our music is fresh, theirs is old fashioned hymns", bla, bla,bla.
You might as well say there are 2.65 billion denominations. Each one of us a is different denomination unto ourselves, yet part of the Body of Christ.
Each cell in an organism has a function within a molecule, within a fiber, within an organ among all the systems. We are all living different lives yet on the same path. The person sitting next to you at church has had a different life, different challenges and tests. They would also argue with you about the meaning of certain scriptures but mostly all of would agree about the fundamentals, the essentials. We have faith in Christ who died for our sins and rose in the third day. Christ is the body and we are in him, who habe faith. There is only one body.
So don't worry about the differences. We war not against flesh and blood but against the unseen spiritual forces of Satan and his demons.
That said, we get caught up in our fleshy desires and behave badly, causing feuds between us.
If an on fire Christian couple who loves each other and get married can have quarrels and differences of opinion, why would you think the Body filled with churches wouldn't? If we all walked in the Spirit all the time we would be in unity. But God has factored all our blunders, defects, sinful behavior and evil into His perfect plan so that the Body of Christ is right on course, exactly where He wants it. He ordained wars and says there is a time for war - because of evil. He balances out good and evil. He is the Restrainer of evil and allows it for His purpose. He knows our flesh gets in the way, but we won't always have our flesh and that is the goal.
It's all good, don't worry.

Then we have the heretical denominations, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Voodooists, the Calvinists

Don't forget to add in the non-Trinitarians. I wouldn't say Calvinists are heretics though.

But the simplest, concept is that salvation is solid as a rock for your average Christian

Actually it is for all who have faith in Christ.

The hyper Grace crowd makes no sense because heaven would be no place for good people or God because it would be full of the worst evil that Satan could muster.

Grace (unmerited favor) is from God. Calling it hyper would be saying He's giving us too much. Salvation is by Grace through faith. And that is ordered and dispensed by God. We can't control that, we believe it. Heaven gets filled with holy people only. Sin dwells in the members of our flesh and we lose that when we die. So our purely washed spirits go to Him white as snow.

The hell and brimstone crowd makes no sense because Christ did not sacrifice Himself on the cross to send most to hell. It would literally defeat His purpose.

"Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life and there are few who find it."
Judgment Day will be devastating to probably 2/3 of the population.
The Body right now consists of about 1/3 and that is the remnant.
1/3 is narrow ... half would not be narrow ... more than half would be wide. So there you have it - narrow is the gate. And Jesus spoke of the Gehenna eleven times. Sheol is mentioned 31 times. Judgment is mentioned 15 times. Two thirds of Revelation is about a Great Tribulation period of judgment. Wrath and indignation are stored up for many and reserved for a specific time and place.
He does not desire that any perish, but many resist, rebel and therefore choose their destiny.

The humorous side of this is poor John Calvin

He is in Heaven - not very poor.

 

[Grailhunter]

Those are just titles, labels, sub-titles, "We are a little different than the church down the street, we are casual, they dress up, we practice spiritual gifts, they don't, our music is fresh, theirs is old fashioned hymns", bla, bla,bla.

No I am not talking about any of that....registered denominations with differing religious beliefs.

Don't forget to add in the non-Trinitarians. I wouldn't say Calvinists are heretics though.

It might be fun to define the word Trinitarians. Calvinist beliefs are about an entity that denied freewill and control all people and all events 100% down to snowflakes. Turns earth in to a puppet show....I don't know heretical...blasphemy against God....Science fiction monster takes over the minds of all the people on earth...whatever.

Actually it is for all who have faith in Christ.

There it is, the extreme! Actually there is more to it than that.
I am not going to get into the homosexuals that have faith in Christ, that have orgies with kids and kills them and eats them afterwards and people think they are going to heaven. Nor am I going to say that they really were not saved to begin with because we have no gage for that, belief in Christ is a personal decision. If you are a Christian and want to go to heaven....Beeee Gooood!

Grace (unmerited favor) is from God. Calling it hyper would be saying He's giving us too much. Salvation is by Grace through faith. And that is ordered and dispensed by God. We can't control that, we believe it. Heaven gets filled with holy people only. Sin dwells in the members of our flesh and we lose that when we die. So our purely washed spirits go to Him white as snow.

Well you are proving my point....the religious literary style has caused people to believe in the extremes.

The humorous side of this is poor John Calvin
He is in Heaven - not very poor.
It is not my paygrade to decide, but you will not catch me teaching kids that God is very much like Satan. Not sure how that is going to go on judgment Day?

 

[Randy Kluth]

That would be correct.

You missed the point. I am not dealing with any topic. The discussion is about the religious literary style that was used in the New
Testament. The style that Christ, Paul, John, and Peter used to address the topics. They each presented the "extremes" of each topic and that the truth is in the middle. In other words on this topic,

Hyper-Grace.........................................................Salvation..................................................................Hell and damnation
The process of Salvation being defined as in Philippians 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

That kind of categorization is your own, and not in the Scriptures themselves. That is, they do not depict the matter of Eternal Security as a debate, and so do not present "extreme" positions on a debate subject that is not even being introduced.

This is *your position,* and *not* the position of the New Testament. I don't find "extremes" given for various debate topics, with a moderate "compromise-position" being offered in their place.

If you wish to find a "middle" position between "extremes," you have to locate that yourself in the Scriptures, based on your own presuppositions. And I might be able to see that.

 

[Grailhunter]

That kind of categorization is your own, and not in the Scriptures themselves.

Yes they are and every person used this style and I gave examples.

That is, they do not depict the matter of Eternal Security as a debate, and so do not present "extreme" positions on a debate subject that is not even being introduced.

Each person does it and I gave examples.

This is *your position,* and *not* the position of the New Testament.

Not my position....it is what they all did. Christ, John, Paul, and Peter. Each would state the extremes on various topics. All you have to do is read. Simple as that.

 

[Randy Kluth]

That kind of categorization is your own, and not in the Scriptures themselves. That is, they do not depict the matter of Eternal Security as a debate, and so do not present "extreme" positions on a debate subject that is not even being introduced.

This is *your position,* and *not* the position of the New Testament.

Yes they are and every person used this style and I gave examples.


Each person does it and I gave examples.


Not my position....it is what they all did. Christ, John, Paul, and Peter. Each would state the extremes on various topics. All you have to do is read. Simple as that.

No, I see the NT authors as addressing *problems* in the churches, and not "debate positions." As such, they were not looking for "middle ground" in various topics that would come up *later* in history.

 

[Grailhunter]

No, I see the NT authors as addressing *problems* in the churches, and not "debate positions." As such, they were not looking for "middle ground" in various topics that would come up *later* in history.

You must not have read the opening statements.....that was one of my points, they did not debate.
You are proving we right again. What extreme do you believe in?
Got your tap dancing shoes on? Without adding words to these scriptures....which one do you believe in? Just a choice not an explanation.
Roman 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Galatians 5:21 “Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

 

[Taodeching]

They understood because they understood the religious writing style of the time period.

That and they did not trust in themselves as people on this forum do, they had a Church they could go to that helped them understand and when disputes came up they held councils. Even the Apostles encountered things which they had to work out but they were not so prideful that they let every person work it out for themselves. The Apostles held a council, the first Church council and it was decided with a consensus and that was that. For the next 1500 years that is how things were hammered out. Even with the split between East and West there were still councils.

That changed in the west in the 1500 and then all he double hockey sticks broke loose when any man could decide what he thought was right. Which brings us to the present age and the people of the forums. There is no understanding because of a need to be right and reject any authority save themselves. When people rejected Christ's Church first in 1054 by splitting apart and then in the 1500's by split into thousands, they set themselves up as judge to understand things on their own which ends up with no one understanding. So it's not just that they understood the religious writing styles but that they relied on the Church, the universal Church at the time.

As an add-on: Even in this thread people will only ever rely on themselves and swear that they are not.

 

[Grailhunter]

That and they did not trust in themselves as people on this forum do, they had a Church they could go to that helped them understand and when disputes came up they held councils. Even the Apostles encountered things which they had to work out but they were not so prideful that they let every person work it out for themselves. The Apostles held a council, the first Church council and it was decided with a consensus and that was that. For the next 1500 years that is how things were hammered out. Even with the split between East and West there were still councils.

That changed in the west in the 1500 and then all he double hockey sticks broke loose when any man could decide what he thought was right. Which brings us to the present age and the people of the forums. There is no understanding because of a need to be right and reject any authority save themselves. When people rejected Christ's Church first in 1054 by splitting apart and then in the 1500's by split into thousands, they set themselves up as judge to understand things on their own which ends up with no one understanding. So it's not just that they understood the religious writing styles but that they relied on the Church, the universal Church at the time.

As an add-on: Even in this thread people will only ever rely on themselves and swear that they are not.

Did you forget the Ecumenical Councils? LOL
I don't think Christ or the Apostles ever thought people should determine things on their own. They struggled with keeping the Gospel true. "Hey we will tell you what the Gospel is and you all decide from there what to believe." That is not going to be in the Bible.
Galatians 1:8 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.
Early on text were few and far in between....usually residing in Churches.
Even the first bound texts...first Bibles commissioned by Emperor Constantine in 331 AD were chained to the podiums.
So people were told what to believe for quite awhile.
Still there is something to be said about so many beliefs interpreted from the Bible.
If you look at the debates here on the forum, it is usually an exchange of the extremes.
I do not think it is too much a matter of the devil.
With Christ, and Paul, Peter, and John addressing various topics at the far ends, it is not easy to see the truth is in the middle without knowing the literary style.

 

[Taodeching]

Did you forget the Ecumenical Councils? LOL

I was speaking in a more general ways

I don't think Christ or the Apostles ever thought people should determine things on their own.

No but people do. It can be seen from the Jerusalem council that it was the Church that decided that circumcision wasn't needed anymore, yet that decision went directly against the OT and God's command. This shows that the complete truth was not in the Bible but could be overridden by a Church council.

I think the biggest problem was when the Bible got to the masses, the masses had no idea and made up their own thing. There were heresies in the past like Gnosticism (which has never went away and many evangelical sects have Gnostic ideas) but after the Bible came out heresies blossomed. Things that were settled in Church councils as they should be now were questioned like the Trinity, Baptism, Belief.

It's an age old thing, the modern day Christians are like Ancient Israel wanting to go their own way. Really history does repeat itself.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

No I am not talking about any of that....registered denominations with differing religious beliefs.

.
Well Catholics are different than Protestants, but they both have many essential beliefs in common.
Realize that in 95 AD, Seven churches were sent letters. Two were praised and encouraged, the rest needed to repent. One of them was almost dead and another God wanted to vomit out of His mouth. Churches had problems from the begginning.
There were legalistic churches then, Judaisers. That scripture in James confused many, " Faith without works is dead." So many adopted faith + works = salvation.

Calvinist beliefs are about an entity that denied freewill and control all people and all events 100% down to snowflakes. Turns earth in to a puppet show....I don't know heretical...blasphemy against God....Science fiction monster takes over the minds of all the people on earth...whatever.

Well, what does sovereignty mean to you?
The Holy Spirit converts, God chose us. Predestination is scriptural. We are the elect.
We can't jumpstart our salvation, God orchestrates it all, leads us down a path towards a divine appointment and lifts the veil of blindness.
Did you lift your veil of spiritual blindness? Let us know how you did that ... free will?
Freewill is over-rated. You can choose all the non essential things you want or do, whether to wear jeans or jeans or eat pancakes. We make a lot of decisions. "A man plans his heart but God directs his steps." You probably give yourself too much credit for the Good choices - God is right their guiding you.
God is behind the significant life changing events. Lets say a person is written in the Book of Life. They would be on God's schedule to be saved sometime in their life. He gives them many opportunities but they reject them - God knows but still cuddles this person along. He needs lessons, experiences to ho through before he is ripe. But what if he suddenly got hit by a car and died before God saved him? Could that happen? No, God would not allow it, because He is in control, knows the future and this person will be saved.
Freewill is not so free. Freedom is temporal. We are either slaves to God or slaves to Satan. If we were really free, there could be no judgment. We would not have to answer to God after we died. But the wages of sin is death. Does your free will have power over that? If you had truly free will, when you died you could just float off to wherever you willed yourself to go. You could go to heaven - without permission, without having to be cleansed of your sin. He'll? Nah, I'm free! I will freely creat my own spiritual realm. Yah, free will is not so free.
But maybe it is not all this freedom you are talking about, maybe it is just the freedom to choose God? But He enables us to choose. We can resist and after a lifetime become callous. Yes, and many do become callous, rebel and resist. God knows who they are, reprobates. Nevertheless, He desires them to be saved and to be fair offers all forgiveness and eternal life.

I am not going to get into the homosexuals that have faith in Christ, that have orgies with kids and kills them and eats them afterwards and people think they are going to heaven. Nor am I going to say that they really were not saved to begin with because we have no gage for that, belief in Christ is a personal decision. If you are a Christian and want to go to heaven....Beeee Gooood!

Rom. 1 :26-27 says homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. And anyone who causes a child to sin ... it would be better if they were not born. They will be judged.
Yes there are false churches, dead churches, and God will remove their lampstand unless they repent.

It is not my paygrade to decide, but you will not catch me teaching kids that God is very much like Satan.

,
Calvin taught that? I am not a Calvinist, but I doubt that he did.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You must not have read the opening statements.....that was one of my points, they did not debate.
You are proving we right again. What extreme do you believe in?
Got your tap dancing shoes on? Without adding words to these scriptures....which one do you believe in? Just a choice not an explanation.
Roman 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Galatians 5:21 “Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

Actually, I don't think you understand or are willing to acknowledge my point. These were not issues when they wrote the Scriptures. Eternal Security wasn't there. Getting fully immersed or being sprinkled in baptism wasn't there. Speaking to how the wine transforms into Jesus's blood wasn't there. They could *not* have been addressing these issues!

So you're saying, perhaps, that the Holy Spirit anticiipated these arguments, and somehow managed to get the apostles to address the extremes of these positions in advance? Perhaps. But I have *not* been proving your point at all. Nope. No tap-dancing.

 

[Grailhunter]

I was speaking in a more general ways

I was just ribbing ya.

No but people do. It can be seen from the Jerusalem council that it was the Church that decided that circumcision wasn't needed anymore, yet that decision went directly against the OT and God's command. This shows that the complete truth was not in the Bible but could be overridden by a Church council.

Christ never intended for His beliefs to be an extension of Judaism or the Mosaic Law. The first Christian council in Jerusalem in 48 AD was due to the Judaizers dogging Paul's ministry. Paul and Peter and Barnabas stood up against Christ's brother, who was not one of the twelve, to free themselves and the Gentiles from Judaism.

God commandments were linked to the Old Covenant. We are not in that Covenant...thank God.

 

[Taodeching]

I was just ribbing ya.

I was being dense then

God commandments were linked to the Old Covenant. We are not in that Covenant...thank God.

Agree

 

[Randy Kluth]

I was just ribbing ya.



Christ never intended for His beliefs to be an extension of Judaism or the Mosaic Law. The first Christian council in Jerusalem in 48 AD was due to the Judaizers dogging Paul's ministry. Paul and Peter and Barnabas stood up against Christ's brother, who was not one of the twelve, to free themselves and the Gentiles from Judaism.

God commandments were linked to the Old Covenant. We are not in that Covenant...thank God.

I don't believe Paul spoke against James, nor do I believe James was wrong in his "compromise" solution. James knew, full well, that righteousness did not consist of observing the Law, once Christ had died. It was a failed covenant, and anything done under that covenant had to have intrinsic value to be of any use. For example, the Law "thou shalt not kill" would have value with or without the covenant of Law.

So James' solution was an acknowledgement of the need to deal with those who were objects of evangelism and still observing the Law as it if was still in effect. Just my view... I do agree with you that the New Covenant is *not* an extension of a dead covenant, once called the Mosaic Law.

 

[Grailhunter]

Actually, I don't think you understand or are willing to acknowledge my point. These were not issues when they wrote the Scriptures. Eternal Security wasn't there. Getting fully immersed or being sprinkled in baptism wasn't there. Speaking to how the wine transforms into Jesus's blood wasn't there. They could *not* have been addressing these issues!

If you can find sprinkle baptisms in the Bible, you will help us all out.
As far as the bread and wine ritual goes and the spiritual aspects of it...I doubt it we can comprehend it. Christ thought it was important enough to risk His ministry. Also explained what would happen if you did not perform it.
The words Eternal Security are not in the Bible but there are scriptures that describe it....that is one extreme end.

 

[Randy Kluth]

If you can find sprinkle baptisms in the Bible, you will help us all out.

Who is "us?" Do you have a following, or are you just assuming that all in this forum would feel the same way you do?

As far as the bread and wine ritual goes and the spiritual aspects of it...I doubt it we can comprehend it. Christ thought it was important enough to risk His ministry. Also explained what would happen if you did not perform it.
The words Eternal Security are not in the Bible but there are scriptures that describe it....that is one extreme end.

I don't have any problem at all comprehending the "Eucharist." It's not mystically understood, but obviously to be symbolically understood. There has historically been a penchant for turning to "mysticism" in Christian history, of the kind where religious rituals become a form of magic.

 

[Grailhunter]

I don't believe Paul spoke against James, nor do I believe James was wrong in his "compromise" solution. James knew, full well, that righteousness did not consist of observing the Law, once Christ had died. It was a failed covenant, and anything done under that covenant had to have intrinsic value to be of any use. For example, the Law "thou shalt not kill" would have value with or without the covenant of Law.

James was a Jewish Christian and Paul was a Gentile Christian, even though He was Jewish, and He had special instruction from Christ.

Christ Laws are vastly superior to anything the Old Covenant could offer. Remember polygamy and selling your daughter as a sex slave was covered by the 613 Mosaic Laws....not our Laws, not our Spirit, not Christianity.

 

[Grailhunter]

Who is "us?" Do you have a following, or are you just assuming that all in this forum would feel the same way you do?

If you can find an example of sprinkling baptism in the Bible, you would take us all to school.

I don't have any problem at all comprehending the "Eucharist." It's not mystically understood, but obviously to be symbolically understood. There has historically been a penchant for turning to "mysticism" in Christian history, of the kind where religious rituals become a form of magic.

You do not have to do that. (mysticism) All you have to do is take Christ at His word. Baptism is important but Christ did not back baptism as much as He did communion.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

Christ never intended for His beliefs to be an extension of Judaism or the Mosaic Law.

Woe ... May be you want to re-word that?
His beliefs? I never heard anyone refer to any part of the Bible as Christ's beliefs. God is the truth. Beliefs are something man has because he does not fully know about everything nor does he know the future.
The Great I AM gave Moses the Law. The Law was not abolished. It remains there to obey to show us what sin is. It was fulfilled by Christ and so we are not saved by keeping it - but we don't discard it either. The rituals, like circumcision, among some 600 laws are required, though Jesus himself said all the commandments fall under the two He gave us, to live God and love one another. I remember attending a church where the Pastor used to joke about turning our Bibles to Deuteronomy or Leviticus, because they aren't applicable to Christians.

 

[Grailhunter]

Woe ... May be you want to re-word that?

No I do not.

His beliefs?

His beliefs he had no problem expressing.

The Great I AM gave Moses the Law. The Law was not abolished.

The Mosaic Law was not abolished because the Jews are still in that covenant. But still obsolete for those in the New Covenant.
Hebrew 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

2nd Corinthians 3:11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

Hebrews 8:6-7 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

2nd Corinthians 3:7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away,

Hebrew 8:13
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

It remains there to obey to show us what sin is.

Galatians 3:24-25 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

The Law was not abolished. It remains there to obey to show us what sin is. It was fulfilled by Christ and so we are not saved by keeping it - but we don't discard it either.

Galatians 5:4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

The rituals, like circumcision, among some 600 laws are required,

There are 613 Mosaic Laws and Galatians 5:2-5 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness.