can anyone tell me the differences between Christian denominations?

[Rokke]

"Many 'pastors' or 'televesion pastors' will quote from one passage (say, "thou shalt not call any manner Father") and use that to lambast the church."

Yet you claim a single passage (Matthew 16:18) is significant enough to prove Christ selected Peter to be the first "pope" and thus founded an unbroken chain of church leaders leading to today's Pope. And that unbroken chain entitles you to declare the Catholic church the only "true" church, thus lambasting every church and believer who isn't Catholic. Can you understand how your two positions can be viewed as hypocritical?

[ruthles]

Nobody lives in a vacuum. Was the church corrupted? Well, is the church corrupted today by selfishness, greed, vainglory etc. etc.? Of courseit was and continues to be. All churches are corrupted, but thank God above, for he is the only thing Holy and worthy of praise.

[Cronos]

While I am by no means comparing the Mormon church to the Catholic church, I could show you similar evidence from the Mormon church that indicates Jesus Christ spent considerable time in North America after his resurrection

Perhaps, but the idea that Peter spent time in Rome, is not the theological basis of the Catholic Church. Our theology is based on Christ alone.

that's what I've been trying to say in the past few posts -- Peter's successor being the Pope is NOT a basic theological foundation of the Church -- Christ is. If somehow you disbelieve it, if you state: "No, Peter was NEVER in Rome", that does NOT affect our Church foundations. If you state that Christ never existed or that he came to America after the Resurrection, that he was a myth -- that DOES hit at our Church foundations.

Am I getting my point across -- Christ is our focus, Peter was but his disciple, not God. We say Peter was martyred in Rome, was the first among equals among the apostles and by that extensions, the bishop of Rome is the first among equals. You disagree. But that has NOTHING to do with Church teachings on the nature of God, on the teachings of Christ.

You don't believe that the Pope is the successor to St. Peter. That is your choice. But the Church teachings are what define us not that the Bishop of Rome is the first among equals.


The Mormon teachings can't really be claimed as analogous as they do have claims about books and meetings from people who 'lost' contact hundreds of years ago. The Church, on the other hand, has writings from people who were near contemporaries of St. Peter.

[Cronos]

Yet you claim a single passage (Matthew 16:18) is significant enough to prove Christ selected Peter to be the first "pope" and thus founded an unbroken chain of church leaders leading to today's Pope. And that unbroken chain entitles you to declare the Catholic church the only "true" church, thus lambasting every church and believer who isn't Catholic. Can you understand how your two positions can be viewed as hypocritical?

Ah, but that's where you are mistaken --- as I've repeated through this post, the unbroken chain of Popes is not the basis on which we state that we are God's Church -- it's the reason we state for the Pope being the leader of the Church. Two separate issues. Church TEACHINGS which are Christ's teachings are what defines the Church as Holy. Church History and teachings are what define it as Apostolic

[Cronos]

thank God above, for he is the only thing Holy and worthy of praise.

Amen to that...

[Rokke]

"Perhaps, but the idea that Peter spent time in Rome, is not the theological basis of the Catholic Church. Our theology is based on Christ alone."

I don't believe that Peter, or where he traveled is the theological basis of the Catholic church either. In fact, until I started reading threads like this on FreeRepublic, I was comfortable that I understood the Catholic church's theological basis on Christ. After all, every church I've ever belonged to shares the same Nicene Creed, which is very soundly based on Christ, and the Word of God. But after reading post after post after post after post by Catholics on FreeRepublic claiming the Catholic church is the ONLY "true" church, and that the foundational evidence of that claim is Matthew 16:18 and Church history which shows an unbroken lineage of Popes starting with Peter, it became clear that at least to those Catholics, their devotion to the church's theological basis is far less important than their belief that the Catholic church is the only "true" church. That is why I've been searching for some evidence outside of evolved church doctrine that ANY Christian church can claim to be the only "true" church. That evidence clearly does not exist beyond Matthew 16:18 (and even that verse must be very liberally interpreted to say what many Catholics claim it says).

Therefore, I completely agree with your second paragraph. I always have. And if that is what I had been reading from Catholics on this site, I wouldn't have thought twice about the theology of the Catholic church.

[Rokke]

" --- as I've repeated through this post, the unbroken chain of Popes is not the basis on which we state that we are God's Church -- it's the reason we state for the Pope being the leader of the Church. Two separate issues. Church TEACHINGS which are Christ's teachings are what defines the Church as Holy. Church History and teachings are what define it as Apostolic"

In my second post to you I asked, "And "The Church" you are refering to is the Catholic Church?" Your response was, "The Church is the CAtholic-Orthodox Church, the apostolic Church, founded by God, and not some man, not some vague half-thought ideas by people who read a little and understand less" I then asked, "OK. Upon what evidence do you base that statement?" Your reply, "The Church is apostolic, in direct line from the church founded by God through the Apostles."

I take from that that you believe "The" church is the Catholic church, and the basis for that is the Catholic church is in direct line from the church founded by God through the Apostles. Can you clarify what "direct line" means?

[Cronos]

But after reading post after post after post after post by Catholics on FreeRepublic claiming the Catholic church is the ONLY "true" church, and that the foundational evidence of that claim is Matthew 16:18 and Church history which shows an unbroken lineage of Popes starting with Peter, it became clear that at least to those Catholics, their devotion to the church's theological basis is far less important than their belief that the Catholic church is the only "true" church.

Thank you for clarifying your position. I think I understand your point a lot better. Yes, we do make the mistake of using the term successor of Peter (and Paul!) to justify us being the True Church. Do I believe the Catholic Church IS the True Church. Yes I do. Why? BEcause of it's teachings. And the teachings of the Church are to a large extent similar to what the Orthodox believe, so I would consider them part of the True Church too along with certain Oriental Churchs.

[Rokke]

"Do I believe the Catholic Church IS the True Church. Yes I do. Why? BEcause of it's teachings."

Cronos, I believe you and I both understand each other a lot better now. I certainly do not agree with your assessment of the prominence of the Catholic church, or the infallibility of its teachings, but I accept what you have said as a personal statement of your faith and will not argue with you in making it.

[Cronos]

Thank you. While you and I don't agree with the assessment of The Church, I hope I have convinced you that the basis for the statement should not be based on Peter's seat in Rome.

[GraceofGod]

If you want to go so far as to buy a book, the book Christianity for Dummies is very good. It's laid out in a very simple and interesting way and should answer most if not all of your questions.

[1stFreedom]

Anulment thread ping: Anulment fighting for dummies...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1337500/posts

[Salvation]

Catholics baptize too!

[k2blader]

Im catholic, but I wasnt raised in a religious household.

Does that mean you think Catholicism is hereditary or something?

[Cvengr]

Perhaps the best method to understand the differences between denominations is to first focus on maintaining a relationship with God ob His grounds and let Him guide you accordingly in your studies.

I suspect that along the way you will encounter aspects of those differences which in and of themselves aren't worth anything good,...however, whatever you do while remaining in fellowship with Him may be used in His plans for you to fulfill His will.

If your intention is to study the differences in order to pick one which more closely matches your liking, then there is a great tendancy to place our personal good ahead of His righteousness. In most cases that scars our own souls and fails to produce divinely righteous action.

On the other hand, even if you aren't aware the differences and remain in fellowship with Him, your testimony will not lose its saltiness to the world,..including those who have submitted to worldly aspects of religion.

God bless.

[wisconsin synod Lutheran]

Iam afraid that you are not aware what real “classical” or orthodox Lutheran beliefs are .

More than likly its not your fault, because lutheran synods that are not really Lutheran at all in their bible beliefs ;Because they hold to higher critical views about Gods word.

They are more in the news do to the agendas or controversy
they cause by their hedrodox views .

[Lyndi Woodruff]

LOL!!! I am a bit amused! You seem to be saying that you are comfortable in believing that you know exactly what the original doctrines of Christianity were, as taught in ancient Aramaic, and thus can report which of dozens, if not thousands of denominations are accurate (ie, “true Christians”) and which are not. I’ve assumed that the religious freedom we are so privileged to have includes the right to define the very nature of the God(s) we worship, as well as our relationship to him (or her). Oops!

[Texas69]

Atari, I read most of the comments below.If you truly want to know the difference between religions talk to the pastor or bishop or leader of each denomination. I did just that some years back. I had read enough of the Bible to know what I believed but I didn't know what each church believed. So as I talked to each one I would rule it out as false doctrine and go on to the next. I finally chose Baptist. Now let me say there are still some things I don't agree with them about but they are closest to what I do believe and I can worship with them freely.
The Catholics can be Christian as well as Baptists but I believe one needs to accept Christ as their personal Savior before they are Baptized and you can't do that as a baby. They baptize infants. I believe God doesn't want us to be ritualistic in our worship of Him so therefore I don't believe the Lutheran, or Presbyterian or Episcopal is my place to worship. The Assembly of God and Pentecostal believe you have to speak in tongues to be saved and even though I do believe one can speak in tongues it is not a necessity and there always needs to someone near that can interpret. The Methodists use sprinkling so I don't believe that either, the bible says Jesus came up OUT of the water when he was baptized by John. I don't believe God wants his church run by Gays, Women or non believers.He plainly says in the bible that Homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. I realize some cannot help themselves of that but they don't need to be flaunting it or trying to run over the people who don't believe it.And they need to try their best to overcome it or else they will not get into heaven. I don't believe women should be preachers for the bible says let the women speak at home to their husbands and their husbands can speak before the church. I don't believe in Mormonism because they believe there is no Hell and the bible plainly speaks of Hell, Hades and the bottomless pit.They also believe one can pray for the dead but each person is given a choice for salvation and cannot do that if he is dead. I don't believe in Muslim for they believe they have to kill those who are not of their belief. My God saves people, one of his commandments is do not kill. If you truly want to be a Christian, read the bible, pray and talk to God about it. He will lead you in the right direction. There are many other religions, like Buddhism, but he is dead. Our God is alive in the Holy Spirit and can live in your heart if you ask him. Then there is New Age, Bahai, and others that believe you just have to be agood person. Being a good honest person will not get you to heaven. You have to know that you know that you know that Jesus Christ died on the cross to save us from our sins. He is the only way, the truth and the life and when you ask Him and have faith of that you will know that he wraps his loving arms around you and he will protect you always. He will allow things in your life that are not fun and may be tragic but he will protect you from Satan as long as you are obedient to the Word of God. I had the tragedy of losing my grandson when he was 7 yrs old and it was devastating to all of us. But because of his death and funeral that was preached there were 25 people who accepted Christ and we don't know how many more made decisions.I would rather he be in heaven than those 25 go to hell. And remember there is no power behind you than the power of God before you.I will pray for you that you find the right power.