Who founded your church?

[theefaith]

And the TIME sure has come . WE in the middle of a massive , massive falling away . It has rome and it has most all the protestant chuches too ,
as well as the world . WHEN JESUS warned , specially nigh the end , that many false ones would arise , WELL HERE WE ARE NOW .

looks like it

 

[theefaith]

And the TIME sure has come . WE in the middle of a massive , massive falling away . It has rome and it has most all the protestant chuches too ,
as well as the world . WHEN JESUS warned , specially nigh the end , that many false ones would arise , WELL HERE WE ARE NOW .

Romans 13:11
And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.

 

[theefaith]

catholic and divine faith! Dogma
153. The Church founded by Christ is unique and one.
154. The Church founded by Christ is holy.
155. The Church founded by Christ is catholic.
156. The Church founded by Christ is apostolic.
157. Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation.

 

[Marymog]

That probaly because Jesus is not religious. what has Orthodxy whatever that is have to do with anything

Ummmm....no answer to my question.

 

[DNB]

@DNB have you read post #75. You don know if you dont feed them they starve, do we really need this relentless nonsense, It wont end till one stops.

Yeah, that's off the rails, I haven't a clue what's going on there, looks like theefaith has lost it?????

 

[DNB]

I disagree. God Himself identified the church even of these last days. This church would a global organisation. They would be abused and persecuted for righteousness sake. Though this church would grow greatly, it would be unpopular with other churches... Even to the point of being called a cult. He did so deliberately, specifically, and linked them to the final preaching of the gospel. The Bible tells us (for those who claim the name of Christ and still believe in the Bible) that the time is coming that the only denominations when Jesus comes will be those who have accepted the mark of the beast and are worshiping according to the government dictates. They are the daughters of the Mother, Babylon the Great. Because they have left the truth, they have become harlots in the same character as their mother from whom they originally came. This will leave only a small minority, a united movement who resist the majority traditions and pressures of the NWO. If they were at any stage a denomination, it has long been annulled by government decree due to their practicing their religion according to the Bible, and the Bible only. Teaching the true gospel, they will be accused of hate speech, hated of all nations for Christ’s sake, and be considered the execration of society. Accused of being the cause of God’s judgments falling upon the earth, they will in the end be sentenced to death. This is they who keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus.(Revel. 12:17; 14:12) They are the only ones patiently waiting for Christ’s coming.

That is rather prophetical, and therefore, hard to verify, ...despite one's eschatological exegesis.
But, the first half of your post I would agree with, in that there is a principle that defines the Church, but not a geographical or physical circumscription.

We all understand the meaning of salvation through faith and God's grace, but extrapolating orthodoxy is another story, let alone true conviction. This, is where the Church is hidden from any sort of tangible boundaries and parameters. Who and where is the true Church of Christ, it cannot be defined in space, the word is near you (Romans 10:6-8). Thus, the Church lies in the individual, not at the denominational or congregational level.

 

[DNB]

Hi DNB,

I have heard of Borgias! How does Borgias fit into your theory that The Church that Christ established with 12 men as it's leader who made decisions that were binding on all Christians isn't led by men? Or is your theory that The Church isn't led by Catholic men?

Curious Mary

I was refuting the argument which Catholics always use, that their Church was developed by Apostolic succession, whereas Protestant denominations, are the mere product of the imaginations of men. In other words, the controversy is not about one's humanity, but about one's inspiration and authority behind their Church and creeds.

Not one of the Catholic councils, bulls, treatises or dogma, has the mark of a first century apostle. Meaning, their proclamations are not only extraneous to Scripture, but in defiance of it.

 

[DNB]

Nope.

Tertullian went into heresy. He DID excoriate Pope Calixtus I - but he recognized his Papal Authority in his rant.

Ok, thank you for the clarification!

 

[DNB]

The fact that there have been some bad Popes doesn't detract from Papal Authority. Those men will be judged by God.
One of the original leaders of the Church was a Devil (Judas) - and he was hand-picked by Jesus.

As for Scripture not being "in line" with Papal authority - you don't know your Bible very well.
In Acts 1 - Peter and the Apostles get together to choose a successor for Judas.
Acts 1:20 states:
"Let another take his office".

The Greek word used here for "office" is Episkopay - which means BISHOPRIC. The OFFICE of Bishop is successive, as we see in Scripture.

As for Peter and the Papacy - if Peter wasn't in charge . . .
a. Tell me WHY Jesus singled out Peter when He gave him the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19) if did not put him in charge.

b. Tell me WHY Jesus asked Peter and Peter alone to feed His lambs and tend His sheep (John 21:15-19) if did not put him in charge.

c. Tell me WHY Jesus said that He prayed for Peter ALONE to strengthen the others and bring them back to faith (Luke 22:31-32) if did not put him in charge.

d. Tell me WHY Peter called "Protos" (First) in the Gospel (Matt. 10:2) if he was not in charge??

e. Tell me WHY Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Matt. 10:2; Mk 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13) if he was not in charge??

f. Tell me WHY Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mark 16:7) if he was not in charge??

g. Tell me WHY Peter takes the lead in calling for a successor for Judas (Acts 1:22) if He was not in charge??

h. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, making him the first Christian to preach the Gospel in the Church (Acts 2:14-36) if he was not in charge??

i. Tell me WHY Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12) if he was not in charge??

j. Tell me WHY Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11) if He was not in charge??

k. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40) if he was not in charge??

l. Tell me WHY Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6) if he was not in charge??

m. Tell me WHY Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together if He was not in charge??

His name is mentioned 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas). John is the next with only 48 mentions, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible.

The fact that there has been some bad popes, first of all, implies the broken lineage of apostolic succession. Secondly, that the college of cardinals can be wrong in choosing a pope, that the pope is neither infallible nor the vicar of Christ on earth, etc...
In other words, if the 'apostolic church' can be egregiously wrong at, at least, one point in time, but actually more, and for many decades and eras (papal schism, Borgias, inquisitions, Copernicus controversy, St Peters indulgences, ...), then that line cannot be trusted, ever. But, even more so, it actually incriminates it to the point of never existing in the body of the Catholic Church. This is self-evident and historically demonstrable.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I was refuting the argument which Catholics always use, that their Church was developed by Apostolic succession, whereas Protestant denominations, are the mere product of the imaginations of men. In other words, the controversy is not about one's humanity, but about one's inspiration and authority behind their Church and creeds.

Not one of the Catholic councils, bulls, treatises or dogma, has the mark of a first century apostle. Meaning, their proclamations are not only extraneous to Scripture, but in defiance of it.

NONSENSE.

Not only can we (and DO) trace our lineage back to the Apostles - we have illustrated that the 1st century Church was CATHOLIC and not Protestant - in belief AND practice. Complete with Bishops, Priests, Decons, the Eucharist, Confession, etc.
And most of what the Councils dealt with were simply confirmations and official definitions of what the Church had ALREADY believed from the beginning.

 

[DNB]

Why do I have to know who is in or out to believe the truth? A believer is simply that, why complicate it?

Yes, I agree with that 'a believer is one convicted of God's salvation through Christ'. And thus, the body of believers is undefinable, intangible and not circumscribable. It resides at the individual level, not at the 'body' or denominational or congregational or church level.
Sorry, is that what you meant by 'Body of believers', not the building, but the random believers throughout many and diverse buildings and churches?

 

[BreadOfLife]

The fact that there has been some bad popes, first of all, implies the broken lineage of apostolic succession. Secondly, that the college of cardinals can be wrong in choosing a pope, that the pope is neither infallible nor the vicar of Christ on earth, etc...
In other words, if the 'apostolic church' can be egregiously wrong at one point in time, for many decades and eras (papal schism, Borgias, inquisitions, Copernicus controversy, St Peters indulgences, ...), than that line cannot be trusted ever. But, more so, it incriminates it to the point of never existing in the body of the Catholic Church.

WRONG.

Christ guaranteed that His Church would NOT fail. Even the "bad" Popes didn't TEACH error - even though their private lives were in question.
In other words - individual MEN can fail - but Christ's Church can't because He equates His very SELF with His Church (Acts 9:4-5).

 

[DNB]

NONSENSE.

Not only can we (and DO) trace our lineage back to the Apostles - we have illustrated that the 1st century Church was CATHOLIC and not Protestant - in belief AND practice. Complete with Bishops, Priests, Decons, the Eucharist, Confession, etc.
And most of what the Councils dealt with were simply confirmations and official definitions of what the Church had ALREADY believed from the beginning.

First, your hierarchy is incorrect, there are only elders, bishops/presbyters, and deacons, for arguments sake. Definitely no cardinals, bishop's see or episcopate, vicar of Christ, nuns or monks, Jesuits or ascetics.
Plus, no confessional of rosary.
Plus, all the ecumenical councils were criminally incorrect, eternally begotten, filioque, theotokos, duophysitism, duothelitism .

 

[mjrhealth]

Ummmm....no answer to my question.

You dont want answers.... you just play games with your life, seems you care very little for it, Id have to stoop to as low as the devil to give you the answers you want.

 

[BarneyFife]

It's a fact that the innate nature and goal of Catholicism is a union of church and state. Which is why several times I have mentioned that Catholicism cannot abide the constitution which separates church and state in line with biblical principles. The two are never to be mixed and God does not condone such a union which was one reason why He established the United States as a free republic, and why so many canned to America from Europe... To escape the tyranny of royal and papal authority. If you want to know God's perspective on church start unions, read scripture. I suggest you start perhaps with 2Chronicles26.

Actually, The RCC already has a union of church and state: The Vatican. (They're just looking to expand it globally, by "new humanism" and climate change). Hasn't it been a sovereign nation since 1929? Correct me if I'm mistaken. (Unless you're just interested in hostile, preditory nitpicking of historic details--I really don't care about negligible inaccuracies-- Ahem, MaryMog and SOL).

 

[theefaith]

Ummmm....no answer to my question.

orthodox = truth or sound doctrine
Heterodox = error or heresy or false doctrine

 

[theefaith]

Jesus.

cannot have Jesus Christ without religion and His church

 

[BarneyFife]

cannot have Jesus Christ without religion and His church

But, honestly, isn't excessive emphasis on ecclesiology just another -ism, TF?

 

[atpollard]

Moravians
Count Zinendorf
1727
Germany

Count Nicolaus Zinzendorf was not the founder of the Moravians. The reformation of Roman Catholic errors and return to orthodoxy dates back to Huss in 1415 and the Moravian Church dates back to 1457, when it was forced out of the then apostate Church of Rome (which centuries later reformed most of the heresies that Huss had objected to). Count Zinzendorf was not even born until 26 May 1700.

I have no time or interest in fact checking all of your other data; I just happened to know the story of Count Zinzendorf.

 

[BarneyFife]

Count Nicolaus Zinzendorf was not the founder of the Moravians. The reformation of Roman Catholic errors and return to orthodoxy dates back to Huss in 1415 and the Moravian Church dates back to 1457, when it was forced out of the then apostate Church of Rome (which centuries later reformed most of the heresies that Huss had objected to). Count Zinzendorf was not even born until 26 May 1700.

I have no time or interest in fact checking all of your other data; I just happened to know the story of Count Zinzendorf.

I'm sure we all get the best information we have access to or the time to collect. It's nice of you to provide further, presumably more accurate details, though. :)