Pope: Other Christians not true churches

[techboy]

How foolish are those that reject?!! All I said is true. The Prince stands ready to make the change in YOU and all who will listen. Will you let him? All you have to do is ask in sincerity by admitting you're a sinner and ask him to cleanse you in his blood. Tell him you'll do anything for him no matter the cost and he will save you. It's not a game or hoax or fairy-tale. It works!

"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." -1 John 5:13

Although I intend to stand by my statement that I have made my case sufficiently that I believe that any unbiased observer can come to his or her own determination, and will therefore no longer be arguing with you on these issues (for now, at least ), this policy does not extend to agreeing with you.

I agree 100% with the entirety of this post, as well as the manner and tone in which it was delivered. Well said.

I also agree 100% with the article prophet posted.

Please, though, do not ask me why I then firmly maintain the areas of disagreement with you I laid out earlier, because I will not answer, lest I violate my statement.

Eschatology is not my strongest area, and I think it is impossible to put interpretation of prophecy into a neat box, but I think the premillenial view is essentially correct. Preterism appeals to people who would like to discard Christianity altogether, and as such I think it should be approached with the utmost skepticism.

I approach everything with the utmost skepticism (and this, at one time, included Christianity). Maybe I should have been born in Missouri.

Still, although I have not yet committed to an eschatology, I have yet to encounter a devastating counterargument (including yours ), and much to commend it.

I kind of suspect I'll end up landing in line with it, eventually, much as Hank Hannegraff did, after years of not taking a public position.

But, who knows?

I may never make up my mind. It's not an essential. I don't have to.

If the Catholic Church is not the true church, then what is?

It's not like there are only 2 different Christian churches. There aren't even only 2 different Bibles.

In one sense (and perhaps the sense you mean), it is very possible that there is no "one true" church. In fact, I find it almost inevitable that this is so, as each denomination was started and run by men, who are fallible creatures attempting as best they can to act on God's infallible word, and some error is inevitable.

In that sense, then, all denominations almost certainly have doctrinal errors, and so cannot be the "true Church".

In another sense, though, we could say that the "true Church" is comprised of the catholic (little "c") church, or "Church Universal", which is made up of all who acknowledge by faith their salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus (making sure, of course, that it is the Jesus of the Bible. I can plant a tree in my yard, name it "Jesus", and worship it, but that will avail me nothing. I have to place my faith in the real Jesus, which is where the 14 essential points come in, and where some groups fail, though not Catholicism).

I think I like the "Church Universal" perspective better.

As for the Bible issue, it's important not to exaggerate.

It is true that the Catholic Church added in a few more books (in the Old Testament) long after the Canon was closed. It is also true that a few other sects have a few extra for one reason or another.

It is important to remember, however, that there is still agreement among all branches of Christianity (the ones that hold to the 14 points) on the core Books of the New Testament.

These Books are sufficient to establish all essential doctrines of the faith firmly and without question. No one's salvation is going to be imperiled because they haven't read Maccabees.

Further, this is still the case even if we take a ridiculously minimalist position of rejecting any Book that has ever even been questioned in any serious way by the early Church.

There's no need to blow things out of proportion.

[AJ_Skins]

I approach everything with the utmost skepticism (and this, at one time, included Christianity). Maybe I should have been born in Missouri.

Still, although I have not yet committed to an eschatology, I have yet to encounter a devastating counterargument (including yours ), and much to commend it.

I kind of suspect I'll end up landing in line with it, eventually, much as Hank Hannegraff did, after years of not taking a public position.

But, who knows?

I may never make up my mind. It's not an essential. I don't have to.

Prophecy and eschatology are probably the areas of the Bible that I've devoted the least amount of time to studying, so I'm not prepared to argue the minutiae of various formal viewpoints. However, I know enough to know that Preterism is the favorite interpretation of atheists. They look at a concept that says "they were writing about things that were happening around them or had already happened", which leads directly to "they made it all up". That's what I was trying to point out.

This may be a digression, but the thing that amazes me about the Bible is the degree to which it contains things that cannot be reasoned out and interpreted without the benefit of further study, or in some cases hindsight. There is a Psalm that says "they have pierced my hands and feet". It's not presented as prophecy. No one reading it before Christ would ever think anything of it, and yet, there it is. There are numerous examples.

The one thing I will point to in terms of my own view of the "end times" is a passage which gets relatively little notice when compared to Revelation or Daniel, but which I think is enormously descriptive and significant, and points clearly to a time that has not yet occurred.

Zechariah 12

1The burden of the word of the LORD concerning Israel. Thus declares the LORD who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him,

2"Behold, I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that causes reeling to all the peoples around; and when the siege is against Jerusalem, it will also be against Judah.

3"It will come about in that day that I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it will be severely injured And all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it.

4"In that day," declares the LORD, "I will strike every horse with bewilderment and his rider with madness. But I will watch over the house of Judah, while I strike every horse of the peoples with blindness.

5"Then the clans of Judah will say in their hearts, 'A strong support for us are the inhabitants of Jerusalem through the LORD of hosts, their God.'

6"In that day I will make the clans of Judah like a firepot among pieces of wood and a flaming torch among sheaves, so they will consume on the right hand and on the left all the surrounding peoples, while the inhabitants of Jerusalem again dwell on their own sites in Jerusalem.

7"The LORD also will save the tents of Judah first, so that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem will not be magnified above Judah.

8"In that day the LORD will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the one who is feeble among them in that day will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of the LORD before them.

9"And in that day I will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

10"I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.

11"In that day there will be great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the plain of Megiddo.

12"The land will mourn, every family by itself; the family of the house of David by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself and their wives by themselves;

13the family of the house of Levi by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the Shimeites by itself and their wives by themselves;

14all the families that remain, every family by itself and their wives by themselves.

Obviously, verses 10-14 are the most significant. Compare to Luke 13:34:

34"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 35Look, your house is left to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'"

[techboy]

Prophecy and eschatology are probably the areas of the Bible that I've devoted the least amount of time to studying, so I'm not prepared to argue the minutiae of various formal viewpoints. However, I know enough to know that Preterism is the favorite interpretation of atheists. They look at a concept that says "they were writing about things that were happening around them or had already happened", which leads directly to "they made it all up". That's what I was trying to point out.

That's not Partial Preterism. Partial Preterism holds that Revelation is a Book of prophecy, just that most of it has now been fulfilled, though had not at the time.

It argues, for instance, that Jesus was foretelling the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. when He talks about watching for the time and "heading for the hills" (my words), which, they note, is exactly what the Christians of the day did when the Romans moved in.

This is why the view requires that Revelation be pre-A.D. 70, and as I noted, that is somewhat problematic, but there are some good reasons to believe it is. For instance, John writes to the church at Laodicea, which was hit by an earthquake in 65 A.D., yet not rebuilt until Marcus Aurlieus did so well after 96 A.D. (Marcus Aurelius was not even born until 121 A.D.). This could be taken to imply that Revelation was written before 65 A.D.

In any case, the view holds that the Book was written before the events, not at all like the secular explanations offered.

[mardi gras skin]

I think the premillenial view is essentially correct.

I think The Historical-Background Method is essentially correct. (page 16)

http://www.god-answers.org/Online_Tools/books/Revelation_class_book.pdf

[skinsfan51]

It's not that.

Take faith and works. I firmly believe that Jesus died for our sins but if I went out and burned down an orphage, I would most likely doomed to hell. That is an extreme example.

Well, if you did go and burn down an orphanage it would be evidence that you probably aren't a Christian, because having Jesus as your Savior and Lord of your life would keep you from doing that.

But let me show you something in the Bible. In the book of James, chapter number two, we read these words:

"Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble."

Certainly the devils aren't following God's ways. On the contrary, they are trying to destroy it. But yet they believe in Him. They have no choice. He exists. But that doesn't mean that they submit themselves to Him or His laws and will.

So it is with most people in this world. They believe in God, but that is about it. From there "god" ends up being some form of being made up of their own ideas and values. Of course they love that god because he's just like them. That isn't the God of the Bible and just believing that Jesus died for your sins isn't enough to changes your character or wash your sins away. You have to forsake yourself and all your own efforts to gain heaven and ask Jesus to forgive you for being a rebel against God's law.

If a person comes to Jesus in that state of brokenness, He will forgive, restore, and TOTALLY change your life. I know it's true because He did it for me. But you have to see yourself as nothing before he can do anything for you.

Another example would be believing Jesus died for our sins and not even caring about following his example. I could be mean to other people, only caring about myself and no others, never lend a helping hand to anyone, steal, murder... I don't think I would end up with salvation.

This seems like common sense to me. And if this is wrong, my common sense doomed be.

No, you are correct. It is common sense and you are exercising it very well. If anyone did the things you mention they would not be saved. Look at what true salvation does:

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." 2 Corinthians 5:17

ALL things means ALL things! All the old you once did and desired will pass away, and ALL things will become new. Don't doubt it. I've seen God do it to hundreds of people, and He'll do it for you.

[BlueTalon]

It's not the same, AJ. When we take "communion" or the "Lord's Supper" we partake of a small, flat cracker and a small cup of grape juice. We are simply remembering what Christ did for us on the cross, and how his finished work bought our redemption.

...You are backpeddling. You have no argument. I've posted plenty over the last several days here to show that there is absolutely no comparison between the Catholic Mass and what I call the "Lord's Supper." There are not in any way the same.

If you're supposed to "do this in rememberence of" him, why do you insist on doing it wrong? A small flat cracker and a small cup of grape juice? Puh-lease. Are you kidding me? Jesus drank wine, not grape juice, and the "Lord's supper" was in fact the Passover feast, a complete ceremonial meal (complete with wine)(with alcohol in it). Is that what you do in your church? Do you have an entire Passover feast whenever you hold communion?

If you don't, if your church's tradition does something in a completely different way than what Jesus said to do in rememberence of him, why do you get so wound up when others do things in a different completely different way than what Jesus said to do in rememberence of him?

I'm a Protestant Christian (born again, evangelical, conservative, pick-your-adjective), and it's pretty clear to me that you have a lot of biblically correct theological understanding. But your people skills suck. I have a low tolerance for stupidity, especially among other Christians, and you're being a real pin-head.

Instead of telling people what they believe, why don't you ask them instead? (And please don't pretend that your semester of studing Roman Catholicism in a Protestant Bible College, using a textbook written by a Protestant, is going to give you any knowlege of Catholicism that Catholics are going to instantly respect.) Instead of focusing on the mechanics of the eucharest, why don't you find out what it means to them when they take it? You might find that their understanding of why they do what they do is surprisingly similar to your understanding of why you do what you do. (And need I remind you, what you do is not what Jesus did. So get off your damn high horse and quit pretending like it is.)

[BlueTalon]

Take faith and works. I firmly believe that Jesus died for our sins but if I went out and burned down an orphanage, I would most likely doomed to hell. That is an extreme example.

Another example would be believing Jesus died for our sins and not even caring about following his example. I could be mean to other people, only caring about myself and no others, never lend a helping hand to anyone, steal, murder... I don't think I would end up with salvation.

Well, Paul went around killing Christians in the early 1st century, and God forgave him.

If you believe that Jesus died for your sins, and you say you do, the next question you should ask with regards to this discussion is: How much did his death really accomplish? Did he die for some of your sins? Most of your sins? All of your sins?

Are there some sins so bad that Jesus' death isn't powerful enough to overcome them?

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." Is there any sin so bad that God is incapable of cleansing us? Or did he really not mean it when he said "all"?

As Americans, we really don't like the idea that God will forgive people that were real scumbags here on earth. But since "all have sinned and fallen short," we have a very skewed perspective. We all start out as sinners, some are just a little better at it than others. If someone claims to be a Christian and either does heinous acts or ignores how God wants us to live, that person is either not really a Christian or is a work in progress. Fortunately for me, it's not my job to be the authority on which people are (true) Christians and which are not.