Posted on 08/12/2006 7:45:47 AM PDT by DouglasKC
Jesus Christ proclaimed, almost 2,000 years ago, "I will build My church." He declared that His Church would never die out, promising that "the gates of Hades [the grave] shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18). He assured His disciples that He would guide and preserve His Church until His return, promising them, "I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20).
What happened to the Church Jesus built? An eyewitness tells us that, immediately after Christ ascended into heaven after His resurrection, His apostles "went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs" (Mark 16:20). The Church had a powerful beginning.
Millions of people profess Christianity; they claim to be members of the Church Jesus founded. But Christianity is a divided religion, composed of hundreds of denominations and schisms. Through the centuries, most of Christianity's branches have assimilated many nonbiblical traditions—philosophical, cultural and religious—into their teachings and practices, spawning even more variations.
How can we account for the explosion of contradictory practices and conflicting factions in the world of Christianity? Is it possible to reconcile competing denominational groups with the standards and objectives Christ established for His Church? Can we know whether Christianity's bewildering variety of customs and teachings faithfully represents those of Jesus Christ?
Remember, Jesus not only promised He would build His Church, but He assured His disciples that His Church would not perish. Is the divided Christianity we see around us that Church? Only the Holy Scriptures can provide a reliable answer to this question.
If Christ's promise that "the gates of Hades shall not prevail" against His Church should be considered a guarantee that those who believe on His name could never be misled or corrupted, then we would have every reason to accept the collective sum of the various divisions of Christianity as the Church that Jesus built.
But He guaranteed no such thing. Instead, He warned His disciples that "false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect" (Mark 13:22, emphasis added throughout). Later the apostle Paul expressed his concern to Christians in his day that their minds could be "corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" by the preaching of "false apostles" (2 Corinthians 11:3, 13).
Jesus spoke even more plainly, explaining that "narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:14-16).
In these pages we examine the fruits Jesus and His apostles said would identify His Church. We look at the contrasting fruits that identify those who are influenced by a different spirit and preach a different gospel. We will learn, not from human tradition or opinion but directly from God's Word, how we can distinguish "the church of the living God" (1 Timothy 3:15) from those who follow "false prophets" in sheep's clothing.
For clarity throughout this booklet, the word Church (with a capital C) refers to the faithful Church that Jesus Christ founded. The word church (with a small c) refers to local groups of believers or other physical organizations. Since church is not capitalized in the Bible translations quoted, all scriptural quotations—whether referring to the Body of Christ or a local congregation—use church with a small c.
Paul would have been considered a Jew, also. In any case, the Jews were banished only for a relatively short time (4 years) and were allowed to return to Rome, still within the lifetimes of Paul and Peter.
To a degree that's true, but it avoids the difficult question of the Apostles.
There is a Spiritual lineage that is significant, but there is also an Apostolic lineage that is also significant.
If it is true that the Church would never be defeated, then there are churches that can trace back to the Apostles. I don't think it's the intent for John Q. Christian to just hang out a shingle and declare himself pastor and church.
Isn't it amazing...We have a Bible with over 30,000 verses in it...And you guys build a religion based on a faulty reading of, 1 verse...
Well now it could be that YOUR 'early' church fathers, lied...
"Through the centuries, most of Christianity's branches have assimilated many nonbiblical traditions—philosophical, cultural and religious—into their teachings and practices, spawning even more variations."
would you please site some of these nonbiblical traditions—philosophicals?
thank you
Ummm, Paul was considered a Jew and then he had to use his Roman citizenship to get out of trouble more than once.
Act 22:25 And as they stretched him with thongs, Paul said to the centurion who stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman and uncondemned? Act 22:26 And hearing, coming near the centurion reported to the chiliarch, saying, Watch what you are about to do, for this man is a Roman. Act 22:27 And coming up the chiliarch said to him, Tell me, are you a Roman? And He said, Yes. Act 22:28 And the chiliarch answered, With a great sum I bought this citizenship. And Paul said, But I was even born free. Act 22:29 Then immediately, those being about to examine him stood away from him. And the chiliarch also was afraid, fully knowing that he was a Roman, and that he had bound him. Act 22:30 On the next day, he desiring to know with certainty why he was accused by the Jews, he freed him from his bonds, and commanded the chief priests and all their sanhedrin to appear. And bringing Paul down, he set him among them.
Off the top of my head, Christmas, Easter, Marianism and antinomianism to name a few.
I agree. God's church (those who have been called out and have received his holy spirit) have generally gravitated to various organizations throughout history.
Well, I believe the Roman church was trying to reconcile its traditional interpretation of Matthew 16:18 as Peter being the first pope with the reality that the bible doesn't show that Peter was ever in Rome.
The fact is, the location is not what is important, but Peter having the keys is what is important to the Church. There are 22 Catholic Churches, all in communion. It is known that Peter started the Church in Antioch, which is one of the 22. If the Church wanted an easy sell it could have said that Peter went with his charge and stayed there until the end of his life. But the fact is there is plenty of evidence that he went to Rome. Peter spent a significant portion of his life somewhere that is not recorded in the Bible. If he wasn't ever in Rome, the other 21 Churches would have made a huge stink over the fact that the Church in Rome was claiming that he was. That has never happened throughout history. Peter was an important person in the Church, as indicated in Scripture. Being an important person, the Church would have noted where Peter went and where he died. It did, and even the Orthodox accept that he was in Rome. It is only the novous Christianity that has an axe to grind and denies it.
It's a bit more than "tradition". It's supported historical and archaeological evidence.
So, why would Protestants make a point of saying he was not there? The answer is fairly obvious to me, to further the schism of the Church.
The following from: http://www.catholic.com/library/was_peter_in_rome.asp
“Here’s a point on which we can point to the lies of Catholic claims,” they say. “Catholics trace the papacy to Peter, and they say he was martyred in Rome after heading the Church there. If we could show he never went to Rome, that would undermine—psychologically if not logically—their assertion that Peter was the first pope. If people conclude the Catholic Church is wrong on this historical point, they’ll conclude it’s wrong on the larger one, the supposed existence of the papacy.” Such is the reasoning of some leading anti-Catholics.
Note, there is no Biblical evidence that Antarctica is at the South Pole, but I believe it is.
Why? Well, although there is nothing about Antarctica in the Bible, there has been ample evidence presented by credible sources, for me to believe that it is there, is cold and, has penguins.
And, I believe Peter was in Rome, and Jesus is the Son of God.
When you think about it, a good bit of what we believe is based on faith.
Isn't it amazing... you Protestants have over 30,000 denominations that can't agree wholly on anything except, "Those Catholics are wrong."
Go ahead and think that. And then, someday watch as a schism develops in your church and again there is another splinter. Which one of the two will be the right one? Which of the two will you join?
Yeah, we have our share of nuts in the Catholic Church. The latest is group of women who say they have ordained themselves as Catholic priests.
Luckily, it's just a matter of time before the form their own schism or are excommunicated.
The gates of hell have not, and will not prevail against it.
I'm sorry that you are reduced to this.
There is no fact to that statement...The real fact is, there are almost as many divisions in the Catholic church as there are in the Protestant churches...
The gates of hell have not, and will not prevail against it.
We're talking Jesus Christ's church here...The one Paul taught to the Gentiles...Paul taught the Gentiles that their salvation was assured...I am assured of my salvation and destination in heaven...
Being Catholic, I understand you can't say that...
He should have stayed with the circumsized like he was told. /sarc
Isn't the Catholic Church a denomination?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.