Some questions from Roman Catholics...
-
exactly... but no one is 100% right. To you the way to address the almight is Yahweh... or maybe it's YHWH. So other Christian who chose to use "God" is right or wrong? Note: this is only to illustrate the point, it does not mean that I am against you using Yahweh.Originally posted by breytonhartge:the point is this, even if it is 1% wrong, it is wrong... you either teach the Word of Yahweh or not... you either follow Yahweh 100% or you don't. If the RC church teaches things that are not in line with the Word of Yahweh, then they are not doing the right thing, Yeshua did not ask us to teach the doctrines of man, but the ways of our God.
on the same track, I don't believe that the gift of tongues still exists, so to me it is wrong. But to my other brethens, it is correct. To me, some charismatic teachings goes against the ways of God.
....so it goes back to - nobody is 100% correct lest some of us are tempted to think that we are..... -
I agree with uncle Chin Eng.Originally posted by breytonhartge:the point is this, even if it is 1% wrong, it is wrong... you either teach the Word of Yahweh or not... you either follow Yahweh 100% or you don't. If the RC church teaches things that are not in line with the Word of Yahweh, then they are not doing the right thing, Yeshua did not ask us to teach the doctrines of man, but the ways of our God.
To me Charismatic teachings are wrong, but they claim to follow God 100 percent. The elder in charge of my bible sudy group taught me tat I shouldn't judge them and everything will be revealed once we are in heaven. -
actually its YHVH, and did not Paul speak about tongues and to say that it was one of the gifts, but to desire greater gifts such as prophecy etc?Originally posted by Chin Eng:exactly... but no one is 100% right. To you the way to address the almight is Yahweh... or maybe it's YHWH. So other Christian who chose to use "God" is right or wrong? Note: this is only to illustrate the point, it does not mean that I am against you using Yahweh.
on the same track, I don't believe that the gift of tongues still exists, so to me it is wrong. But to my other brethens, it is correct. To me, some charismatic teachings goes against the ways of God.
....so it goes back to - nobody is 100% correct lest some of us are tempted to think that we are..... -
The thing with the denominations is that there will always be something not quite right. The best way to know what to do is refer to the word of God. which all of us have. The bible. and did not God say He gave us a better covenant, which is this, He has written His laws on our hearts that we all might know from the least to the greatest?Originally posted by laoda99:I agree with uncle Chin Eng.
To me Charismatic teachings are wrong, but they claim to follow God 100 percent. The elder in charge of my bible sudy group taught me tat I shouldn't judge them and everything will be revealed once we are in heaven. -
the issue is NOT whether Christians during those days spoke in tongues, but whether they are relevant or exist today.Originally posted by breytonhartge:actually its YHVH, and did not Paul speak about tongues and to say that it was one of the gifts, but to desire greater gifts such as prophecy etc?
when I used "tongue" as an example, all I am saying is that nobody can claim to be 100% correct, and while I do not believe this gift exist today, it is my personal opinion and will fully agree that each individual, you inclusive, has the right to believe that it does exist. I will NOT insist that I am right and you are wrong. -
so you do not insist that the RC church is wrong?Originally posted by Chin Eng:the issue is NOT whether Christians during those days spoke in tongues, but whether they are relevant or exist today.
when I used "tongue" as an example, all I am saying is that nobody can claim to be 100% correct, and while I do not believe this gift exist today, it is my personal opinion and will fully agree that each individual, you inclusive, has the right to believe that it does exist. I will NOT insist that I am right and you are wrong. -
Just as I do not insist that charismatics are wrong, I will not insist that the RC church is wrong.Originally posted by breytonhartge:so you do not insist that the RC church is wrong?
Just as I do not agree with some of the things that charismatics teach, I also do not agree with some of the things the RC church teach.
Just as I think that the charismatics are good in some areas of church life and wish that all churches do the same thing, I think the RCs have done lots of good to lots of people and hope that some of these things be adapted in all churches.
As along as a church confesses that this church believe in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, and they exist as three in one, everything else is just peripheral. -
Is RC not a denomination too?Originally posted by breytonhartge:The thing with the denominations is that there will always be something not quite right. The best way to know what to do is refer to the word of God. which all of us have. The bible. and did not God say He gave us a better covenant, which is this, He has written His laws on our hearts that we all might know from the least to the greatest? -
I agree. I just need to add one more.Originally posted by Chin Eng:As along as a church confesses that this church believe in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, and they exist as three in one, everything else is just peripheral.
Salvation by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and not by works. -
Technically, no!Originally posted by laoda99:Is RC not a denomination too?
Also technically, protestants are the heretics...
for whatever reasons denominations are formed, be it, because of a king's ego, a difference in theological opinion, naturally evolution, protestant churches came from the RC.
Having said that, this is not new, is it.... a pastor's ego, a difference in theological opinion, natural evolution, hey presto, a new church is formed. -
Haha...ok....technically we are heretics....i agreeOriginally posted by Chin Eng:Technically, no!
Also technically, protestants are the heretics... for whatever reasons denominations are formed, be it, because of a king's ego, a difference in theological opinion, naturally evolution, protestant churches came from the RC.
Having said that, this is not new, is it.... a pastor's ego, a difference in theological opinion, natural evolution, hey presto, a new church is formed.
so u see RC as the mother church ha? -
No, I don't see the RC as the mother church. I was just merely pointing out to some historical events, lest we all forget and think that only we are entitled to belong to the ordained church of Christ.Originally posted by laoda99:Haha...ok....technically we are heretics....i agree
so u see RC as the mother church ha? -
they never were, they are the ones that are responsible for changing and adding to the word of Yahweh.Originally posted by laoda99:Haha...ok....technically we are heretics....i agree
so u see RC as the mother church ha?
eg... specifically changed the sabbath from sat to sunday and christmas and easter and forced jews who believed in Yeshua to convert.
won't say anymore on this as I have already said so before.
to get back to true christianity one would have to go back to hebraic roots and to first principles as many of the different denominations have differnt doctrinal teachings based on the understanding of men. -
wah....like tat all the protestant and even reformed churches also culprits liao....Originally posted by breytonhartge:they never were, they are the ones that are responsible for changing and adding to the word of Yahweh.
eg... specifically changed the sabbath from sat to sunday and christmas and easter and forced jews who believed in Yeshua to convert.
won't say anymore on this as I have already said so before.
to get back to true christianity one would have to go back to hebraic roots and to first principles as many of the different denominations have differnt doctrinal teachings based on the understanding of men.
We should all become messanic jews......
As much as I think we should go back to the fundamentals, I disagree we have to go back to jewish ways. We are gentiles, not Jews. Paul made it clear for us in the scriptures. -
note I did not say become messianic jews, but to go back to hebraic roots.Originally posted by laoda99:wah....like tat all the protestant and even reformed churches also culprits liao....
We should all become messanic jews......
As much as I think we should go back to the fundamentals, I disagree we have to go back to jewish ways. We are gentiles, not Jews. Paul made it clear for us in the scriptures.
and do you think that Yahweh has one set of laws for gentiles and another for jews? i don't think so.
Like I have often said, our God is first the God of the Jews, He was their God before He was ours. So do you think that God will change everything just because of us gentiles? No. If we choose God, then we also choose to be HIS people, just as the Jews are. We are grafted in to the true vine, and guess what the part that is grafted in takes on the properties of the vine itself and does not display any of its own properties anymore.
Going back to fundamentals is also going back to God's ways not just jewish ways. You cannot read the new testament without first accepting and acknowledging that the old testament applies.
Why can you not see that we are Yahweh's children, so we follow HIS ways.
Know this, when Pual was preaching, he was still very much aware of the commandments of Yahweh. -
The RCs are the ones arguing for their Church as the one true Church of Christ, with the Pope as the head. Since Protestants are not in union with Rome, they don't belong to the true Church.Originally posted by Chin Eng:No, I don't see the RC as the mother church. I was just merely pointing out to some historical events, lest we all forget and think that only we are entitled to belong to the ordained church of Christ.
Protestants are the ones arguing for the Church of Christ with Jesus as the head. Every Christian belongs to this Church. -
your question is ambiguous. Obviously nobody can be right on all things.Originally posted by breytonhartge:so you do not insist that the RC church is wrong?
you should ask .. are they worshipping the God you worship?
isn't the greatest commandment love your god followed by love your neighbours? if a Christian claims to love God, he better worship the correct God first. Everything else is pheriphery.
Sola Dei Gloria! -
The issue between gentile and jewish christians have been settled long long long long ago between Paul and Peter. Do not wish to go into it anymore.Originally posted by breytonhartge:note I did not say become messianic jews, but to go back to hebraic roots.
and do you think that Yahweh has one set of laws for gentiles and another for jews? i don't think so.
Like I have often said, our God is first the God of the Jews, He was their God before He was ours. So do you think that God will change everything just because of us gentiles? No. If we choose God, then we also choose to be HIS people, just as the Jews are. We are grafted in to the true vine, and guess what the part that is grafted in takes on the properties of the vine itself and does not display any of its own properties anymore.
Going back to fundamentals is also going back to God's ways not just jewish ways. You cannot read the new testament without first accepting and acknowledging that the old testament applies.
Why can you not see that we are Yahweh's children, so we follow HIS ways.
Know this, when Pual was preaching, he was still very much aware of the commandments of Yahweh.
If we are going back to fundamentals, I would say reformed theology should be the guiding principles, not going back to jewish ways. -
Actually the Paul and Peter part very funny.Originally posted by laoda99:The issue between gentile and jewish christians have been settled long long long long ago between Paul and Peter. Do not wish to go into it anymore.
Christians nowadays say cannot judge their brethens .. but the apostle Paul had quite harsh words for the chief apostle Peter.
Paul setting very bad example leh!
To think God gave his keys to Peter .. what a shame.
I rather think God gave his keys to Paul.
-
I like this statement I found from the WEFC website,
' Chrysostom, an early church father, put it well when he said," In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, charity. In all things, Jesus Christ." Within the Evangelical Free Church there can be close Christian Fellowship even though there may be differences of opinion in some minor areas of doctrine"
What I understand this to be is that in major issues (essentials), there must be agreement.
example:
That we are justified and received salvation by the grace of God, through the works of our Lord Jesus Christ (which our works does not added to it, neither is our lack of works able to substract from it).
The Holy Trinity that God, Christ, Holy Spirit are three and also one
The absolute authority of the Bible as the written word of God and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
... etc
And in minor issues (non-essentials), there are room for differences,
example:
Water baptism, by sprinkle or immersion (my take is that this is just an outward expression of what had already taken place inside)?
Speaking in tongues, to speak or not to speak (my take is, if not comfortable, then don't)?
...etc
this is just my thought.
peace and God bless.
-
I am one of the other Christians who disagree that we cannot have harsh words for fellow Christians. I have said before that the verse on "Judging" is totally misrepresented. Incidentally, I am also not one of those that believe that as a Christian, one cannot be angry.Originally posted by Icemoon:Actually the Paul and Peter part very funny.
Christians nowadays say cannot judge their brethens .. but the apostle Paul had quite harsh words for the chief apostle Peter.
I agree.Originally posted by vince69:The Holy Trinity that God, Christ, Holy Spirit are three and also one
The absolute authority of the Bible as the written word of God and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
... etc
And in minor issues (non-essentials), there are room for differences,
example:
Water baptism, by sprinkle or immersion (my take is that this is just an outward expression of what had already taken place inside)?
Speaking in tongues, to speak or not to speak (my take is, if not comfortable, then don't)? -
Yesterday I read a book abt catholic historyOriginally posted by Icemoon:Actually the Paul and Peter part very funny.
Christians nowadays say cannot judge their brethens .. but the apostle Paul had quite harsh words for the chief apostle Peter.
Paul setting very bad example leh!
To think God gave his keys to Peter .. what a shame.
I rather think God gave his keys to Paul.
it says paul sets a precedent for pple in the lower hierachy to call on popes to rebuke them if their thelogy go wrong
anyway, Peter accepted Paul's views so we shouldn't debate abt it anymore -
Is this book, by any chance, written from the protestant perspective?Originally posted by laoda99:Yesterday I read a book abt catholic history
it says paul sets a precedent for pple in the lower hierachy to call popes to rebuke them if their theology go wrong
anyway, Peter accepted Paul's views so we shouldn't debate abt it anymore -
better than written by the likes of Dan Brown.Originally posted by Chin Eng:Is this book, by any chance, written from the protestant perspective? -
can share the title of the book and its author? sound interesting leh....Originally posted by laoda99:Yesterday I read a book abt catholic history
it says paul sets a precedent for pple in the lower hierachy to call on popes to rebuke them if their thelogy go wrong
anyway, Peter accepted Paul's views so we shouldn't debate abt it anymore
don't selfish, got good book must share