UnderGround Forums
 

HolyGround >> When did the Church disappear?


11/3/09 12:39 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
toelocku
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/5/03
Posts: 2773
" It does more to point out what God is not than to attempt to define God, who is unknowable. Teaching precedes action, which is why you bother talking about the issues that are important to you."


God most certainly is knowable, and action precedes teaching.
11/5/09 9:09 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
figure four
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3257
it disappeared the minute it introduced false teachings...
11/5/09 10:54 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Lahi
33 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 6428
Figure Four, out of curiousity, do you believe there is a church out there today that has perfect doctrine? Or do you mean something else by false teachings, like teachings so distorted they are blasphemous?
11/5/09 11:54 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17491
ridge: This post is full of contradictions and I doubt you went and checked up on all the primary sources (reading each early Christian to find the context).

me: I have at times. At one time I scoured the writings of early apologetics and modern apologetics to gleam what they said about modalism, and pre, mid and post trinitarian theology.

you: The visible Apostate church persecutes all these fringe groups but then you show evidence that they actually don't and accept "Jesus only" baptism as valid.

me: Well, I think we travelled through centuries and various locations right? Certain individuals were more tolerant and others stumbled upon more remote groups still practicing the more "ancient" religion and were not sure what to do with them. Certainly others were far less tolerant.

you: The problem with claiming a kinship with every fringe group that appears to be the "victim" (and the orthodox church was often the minority) is that you are signing on to all kinds of beliefs that your modern UPC would never accept. Let's say that there were some "Jesus only" groups but they baptized infants. Are they still the church? What about a Jesus only group that never spoke in tongues?

me: ridge, I think that's a valid point that I'm willing to concede to you. I only meant to show you in this particular case that baptism in Jesus name is in scripture, it is ancient (preceeding trinitarian theology) and it's weaved through out history (and often on the receiving end of persecution or worse). I don't know any groups who were "Jesus Everything" but practiced infant baptism do you? But yes, it is tenuous to just say that all the ancient views were monolithic and shared by modern modalistic movements. But there does seem to be commonality and the problem with ancient movements is that they are often defined by their enemies. Tertullian's "Christian" attitude towards PRAEXES easy to find but we don't have what Praexes wrote. Same with Noetus and others.

I understand your trepidation but it's really not as contradictory as you may think.

you:
So Rooster's church has the authority to deny the Trinity and completely rework Christian ontology?

me: sure, to those who belong to it. I have no authority over your wife but exercise authority over my wife. My church has no authority over you but exercises authority over those who voluntarily submit to their authority.

you: Maybe not overnight, but things like focusing on the rapture instead of the poor, the belief that salvation is eternally secure after a one time decision, and spending literally hours on how to adorn one's hair without braids all stem from doxy deviations.

me: ridge, are you talking about my church? You should introduce yourself when you come in..and stay for the whole sermon. I can assure you that our pastor does preach on "the poor", we do not believe in once saved always saved, and my wife and the women in the church spend no more time on their hair then most women (which is entirely to long).
11/6/09 1:57 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Slysir09
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/21/09
Posts: 239
"the women in the church spend no more time on their hair then most women (which is entirely to long)."

Ha!!! That may be something we can all agree upon on this forum
11/6/09 2:23 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
25 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 14974
 Rooster,

The hair comment was not directed at your church.  It is based on something a former Pentecostal woman told me about a woman's meeting.  I only mentioned your church as an example to the Rev because I know he disagrees with your theology and he knows what it is.
11/6/09 11:36 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17496
Hi Ridge, that's fair. Although I'm not sure any of you really "know" my theology if you haven't really been a part of the church. I hear people misrepresenting it, stereotyping it, etc.

My views of Catholicism are based on past and current history. I was born and raised catholic, I went to private catholic schools, all my friends and family were and are catholic (or those that haven't converted yet :-)

And even then, I recognize that i'm speaking from the perspective of a midwestern interpretation, a latino representation, etc.

Anyway, no biggie.
11/6/09 3:40 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
25 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 14979
the rooster - Hi Ridge, that's fair. Although I'm not sure any of you really "know" my theology if you haven't really been a part of the church. I hear people misrepresenting it, stereotyping it, etc.

My views of Catholicism are based on past and current history. I was born and raised catholic, I went to private catholic schools, all my friends and family were and are catholic (or those that haven't converted yet :-)

And even then, I recognize that i'm speaking from the perspective of a midwestern interpretation, a latino representation, etc.

Anyway, no biggie.

 I have a colleague who is just one step removed from UPC and I have also read UPC church statement of faiths.  Not that any of that matters.  I was just using it as an example because I know the Rev disagrees about Trinitarian doctrine with you.  
11/6/09 4:04 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17500
"one step removed from UPC"

Do you mean he's leaving the UPC or that he belongs to a similar organization? (there is millions who belong to other organizations...PAW, independents, etc.).

I think it's good that you read church stmts of faith etc. I would add again that their is autonomy between the individual churches, individual members although they do belong to an authority structure.

Thanks.
11/6/09 4:22 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
25 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 14984
the rooster - "one step removed from UPC"

Do you mean he's leaving the UPC or that he belongs to a similar organization? (there is millions who belong to other organizations...PAW, independents, etc.).

I think it's good that you read church stmts of faith etc. I would add again that their is autonomy between the individual churches, individual members although they do belong to an authority structure.

Thanks.

 Yes I know how that works.  I went to  an independent Baptist church for over ten years.  This person's church just broke from the UPC to form their own church.  They have all the same trappings.  No braided hair, no hair cuts for women, no make-up, dresses only, no alcohol, etc. etc.
11/7/09 1:40 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 17509
"trappings"?
11/9/09 11:12 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 1986

 I just found this thread, and have enjoyed reading everyone's opinions. I will share mine and hope that it comes across in writing as gently as it feels to me as I write it.

I struggle a lot with doctrine. There was a time when I thought I had to believe a certain thing exactly in order to be sure that I would not go to Hell. I also wanted to believe 'correctly' because I wanted to know God and his attributes as fully as possible.  It was this that ultimately led to my belief in universal salvation, because there are just too many interpretations of things for us to ever hope of getting it exactly right.

If Catholics and Orthodox are not 'saved' according to modern evangelical Protestant teaching, what happened to the millions of people who have lived and died under their teachings, when there was no other way known? How can modern Christians trust the documents chosen for the Bible if they can't trust the church which produced it?

On the other hand, are the millions of people today who call themselves Christian, but are not members of the Catholic or Orthodox faith, outside the scope of the Lord's salvation?

My most recent thinking on this subject is this: what difference does it make if we baptize in the name of Jesus, or in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but we are not feeding the hungry, helping the poor, and tending to the sick? What difference does it make if I do or do not understand what is meant by the 'Trinity?'  I mean the official theological reason for the split between the East and West was whether or not the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and Son or the Father only! I appreciate their desire to know the truth, because like I said I've struggled for years with trying to 'get it right,' but as I've aged I just can't help but think it's all much ado about nothing. 

I John 4:16 We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.

11/9/09 1:42 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 1988
 p.s. Mormons believe that the early church was corrupted after the death of the Apostles, and has been restored in our era in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Essentially, the propose that either Catholics/Orthodox are the church or they are the church, because without apostolic succession there can be no church. It's all just private interpretation.
11/9/09 4:40 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
zealot66
20 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 10931
 you have friends here Grakman. Ive been trying to point this out for years........
11/9/09 6:14 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 11/09/09 6:24 PM
Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 1992
 Thanks, zealot. What's your take on all this? What is your faith / denomination?
11/10/09 12:51 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ramses II
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/7/08
Posts: 84
"There was a time when I thought I had to believe a certain thing exactly in order to be sure that I would not go to Hell. I also wanted to believe 'correctly' because I wanted to know God and his attributes as fully as possible. It was this that ultimately led to my belief in universal salvation, because there are just too many interpretations of things for us to ever hope of getting it exactly right.

If Catholics and Orthodox are not 'saved' according to modern evangelical Protestant teaching, what happened to the millions of people who have lived and died under their teachings, when there was no other way known? How can modern Christians trust the documents chosen for the Bible if they can't trust the church which produced it?

On the other hand, are the millions of people today who call themselves Christian, but are not members of the Catholic or Orthodox faith, outside the scope of the Lord's salvation?

My most recent thinking on this subject is this: what difference does it make if we baptize in the name of Jesus, or in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but we are not feeding the hungry, helping the poor, and tending to the sick? What difference does it make if I do or do not understand what is meant by the 'Trinity?' I mean the official theological reason for the split between the East and West was whether or not the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and Son or the Father only! I appreciate their desire to know the truth, because like I said I've struggled for years with trying to 'get it right,' but as I've aged I just can't help but think it's all much ado about nothing.

I John 4:16 We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him."



This^
11/10/09 9:11 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Pretjah
1053 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/23/02
Posts: 32215
 ridgeback who was right in the disagreement with PAUL and PETER?? 

if peter was truely the first "pope" how could paul even disagree with him yet rebuke him
11/10/09 10:22 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
toelocku
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/5/03
Posts: 2792
pretjah don't look for an biblical answer...its tradition...


the idea of a pope in the nt is laughable, it goes against everything Jesus said, and all that the apostles(Peter included) taught.

noon is to have Lordship of our faith BUT GOD ONLY.

God uses the foolishness of preaching to make 'us' joint partakers in His glory, but there is NO POPESHIP, ANYWHERE in the bible.
11/11/09 3:28 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ridgeback
25 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/3/07
Posts: 15076
Pretjah -  ridgeback who was right in the disagreement with PAUL and PETER?? 

if peter was truely the first "pope" how could paul even disagree with him yet rebuke him
Pretjah,

St. Paul was right to castigate St. Peter.  I'm not sure why you asked me this question since I am not Catholic, but I can tell you that most Catholics would say the same thing since even the concept of papal infallibility (which I don't hold to as an Orthodox Christian) does not contradict with St. Peter being wrong.  Most Catholics believe there are plenty of popes in hell and that papal infallibility has nothing to do with the personal perfection of the people sitting on the throne.  

It is patently clear that Jesus gave Peter a special kind of leadership role among the Apostles.  What that means through history depends on who you talk to, but we can't act like Catholics are just pulling it out of the air when you read all the things Jesus specifically said to Peter.  In ancient Christianity the bishop of Rome was the "first among equals" and had the special duty of calling together councils.  Many of the early popes were fearless and Christ filled men who are saints in Orthodoxy as well.  
 
9/14/10 12:11 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 3040
 ttt
9/14/10 9:23 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
figure four
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3903
There is a church with perfect doctrine...

One that has no sects...divisions...denominations...

Complete Unity...

That re-emerged in the islands of the sea...
9/15/10 5:19 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 3043
figure four - There is a church with perfect doctrine...

One that has no sects...divisions...denominations...

Complete Unity...

That re-emerged in the islands of the sea...

 Ok, I'll bite it what is it?
9/19/10 11:20 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
zealot66
20 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 11324
 hmmm, good thread, Ill have to think a bit before I post. Glad to see some decent discussions reappearing here. I miss the old days.The good and bad.
9/19/10 9:01 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ocianain
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/5/06
Posts: 2404
The Church never was corrupted never disappeared, to argue it was/did is to call Christ a liar, at best mistaken. In either case it argues He failed, ergo He was not God incarnate. He said the gates of hell would not triumph against His church. To argue hell didn't but Constadine did is absurd.
9/19/10 9:56 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 3062
ocianain - The Church never was corrupted never disappeared, to argue it was/did is to call Christ a liar, at best mistaken. In either case it argues He failed, ergo He was not God incarnate. He said the gates of hell would not triumph against His church. To argue hell didn't but Constadine did is absurd.

 What is your definition of corruption, and how would one recognize if the church had been corrupted or not?

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.