Verses of cooperation

[Invicta]

The Crusades were Catholic, not Christian. The Word of God nowhere calls for the extermination of all non-Christians and nowhere commands forced conversions.

A number of crusades were carried out against true Christians such as the Albis and the Waldensians.

[John81]

A number of crusades were carried out against true Christians such as the Albis and the Waldensians.

Another good point of fact. Not to mention the Catholic Crusades also targetted many Jews.

[JerryNumbers]

He did with the nation of Isreal. He commanded them to kill ever man, woman, child and creature when they took the land.

The Crusades were done in the name of Christianity. For many years, Catholicism was the only CHristianity. As the church grew and spread, it became corrupt and those in political power begain to use the Church and Chrisitian teachings for political purposes. Islam is being distorted many times in the same way.

In early church history, people begain meeting in houses (New Testament times). They grew to congregations. The congregations were overseen by the apostles, such as Paul. After the death of apostles, the church spread and stayed small, as persecution continued. Constentine adopted Christianity as the State religion, and at that point, CHristianity took off and grew exceedingly. It grew along with the Roman Empire. During this time, continuing the apostoic tradition, bishops replaced apostles as the overseers of the church. Potlical power and religious power in Christianity coincided for a time. The Roman empire becmae too large, and there was a divide between the Eastern Empire and Western Empire around 1000 A.D. (a little after). Ultimately, there was a split in power. The eastern church became the Eastern Orthodoxy Church, and the Western Church became the Roman Catholic Chruch. The Rmoan Catholic Church was the chruch. There were no denominations. Are you saying there was no Christianity during this time? There was Christinaity found in the church, though those in political power abused the Church and it became corrupt. They undertook the Crusades to kill Muslims and pagans in the name of Christ.

Later, Luther led the way to reform the church. This began the Protestant Reformation, and denominations have splintered since then. Your church, has roots in the Roman Catholic Church. We all do. It is an inescapable part of Christian history. Some churches that broke away so reected the Church that they rejected everything. Others reformed doctrine, but kept some of the forms of worship, etc.

My point is, The Roman Catholic Church is part of history. During th Crusades, they were Christianity, though Christianity was being abused. Islam is abused in much the same way in using religion to further political purposes. You say Christianity cannot be used to promote violence? Many who have bombed abortion clinics have done so in the name of Christ. Many things can be done in his name that he would not approve of. Islam is no different.

No, your wrong, 100 % wrong, the RCC has never been Christian, never, they have always been false teachers. But during the day that they persecuted, they persecuted the true Christians, doing so in the name of God. Yes, they murdered and raped people, in the name of God. They drug Christians from their homes, burning their Bibles, their houses, burning true Christians at the stake.

In fact they tried their best to wipe out all Christians, they wanted to be the one church, but they failed, no one can win when they fight against God.

But one thing they never were, and will never be, as long as they follow the teaching they have, they will never be Christians, there is only one way to be a Christian, and its thanks to God's mercy, the grace He has show us, by faith in Jesus, not of yourself, not of works.

[John81]

No, your wrong, 100 % wrong, the RCC has never been Christian, never, they have always been false teachers. But during the day that they persecuted, they persecuted the true Christians, doing so in the name of God. Yes, they murdered and raped people, in the name of God. They drug Christians from their homes, burning their Bibles, their houses, burning true Christians at the stake.

In fact they tried their best to wipe out all Christians, they wanted to be the one church, but they failed, no one can win when they fight against God.

But one thing they never were, and will never be, as long as they follow the teaching they have, they will never be Christians, there is only one way to be a Christian, and its thanks to God's mercy, the grace He has show us, by faith in Jesus, not of yourself, not of works.

Unfortunately, most professing Christians don't know any more about true Christian history than do the lost. Sadly, too many professing Christians are quick to attack Christianity with false information while trying to defend false religionists and those who choose to wallow in sin and even as they try to justify their own lack of abiding by the Word of God.

[JerryNumbers]

Unfortunately, most professing Christians don't know any more about true Christian history than do the lost. Sadly, too many professing Christians are quick to attack Christianity with false information while trying to defend false religionists and those who choose to wallow in sin and even as they try to justify their own lack of abiding by the Word of God.

100 % right Brother John, Yet many of these such people act as if they know all about God, & His ways. Sadly many of them are teachers, deacons, pastors, preachers, & many of them are writing books. While in reality they're in dire need of milk of the Word, for they cannot stand handle, stand, the meat of the Word.

1Co 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

[Soj]

Church history, all of it, has its roots in the Catholic church. I am not sure how you can say that it does not. of course, the foundation of the Church is Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church contributed so much to the expansion of Christianaity. The church grew and evolved. It began on the day of Pentecost, spread n small groups through persecution, and the apostles oversaw the growth and oversaw the NT Church. By the second century, after the death of the apostles, bishops oversaw the churches. It evolved until Contantine declared it the official religion.

Christianity and the church are integrally related. I am not sure how you can say that some churches have no roots in the Catholic Church. There is a clear progression through history. The New Testament church grew. It was overseen first by apostles, then by biships. This evolved into what we know as the Roman Catholic Church.

Sorry to say this Kindofblue1977, but you have fallen hook, line, and sinker for a lie! I don't know what history books you've been reading (pro-Catholic obviously) but you've got it all around backwards.

Ever since the first century there have been groups of true Bible believers outside of the influence of the RCC, and these groups were called sects and dissenters because they would not conform to Rome's ungodly, unbiblical practises. As a result they were mocked, tortured, and killed all the way through the Dark Ages by the Catholics. The RCC has NEVER produced Biblical Christian's, only many many counterfeits. The RCC is not the Church of Jesus Christ, it is the Church of Satan and is responsible for countless atrocities against mankind ever since it spawned into existence, to eventually become one of the largest religious cults in the world.

2 Corinthians 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. Edited January 21, 2011 by Soj

[no name joe]

I will call anyone who professes the name of Jesus Christ, believe that he died on the cross and was raised from the dead and cry out to him for the forgiveness of sins my brothers and sisters in Christ. To the church in Thesolanica, Pauls wrote to a church who had some wrong theology. They had begun to say "I was baptized of Paul," or I of Cephus, or I of another. They had begun to follow after teachers and lost their focus on Christ. Yet, they were a CHristian church. Paul wrote to them they should not be divided over teachers, but united in Christ.

If Paul wrote today, I think he would have something similary to say. People who say "I was baptized in a Baptist church and follow their teaching" or "I was baptized in a Presbyterian church and follow their theology" or I of Cathoic, Methodist, or whatever would be rebuked by Paul. I believe the apostle Paul would say to us, do you not realize that you all follow Christ? It is fine and good taht there are many diferent churches, but we are all united in Christ, whether it be Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Anglican, etc. All who call upon the name of Christ will experience salvation and enter into life. I do not agere with much of the theology of some churches, but if a church professes Christ and looks to him for the forgiveness of sin, then they are fellow believers.

I think I'l call it a quit to this thread too. As it seems that dscussion is no longer productive.

[dantheman2]

Not specifying freedom of religion for Christianity only was a major mistake. Such was both unbiblical and unwise.

Actually, they did specify. People have twisted what the founding fathers said to attempt to justify what is commenly called "freedom of religion" today, but what is taught today and what the founding fathers actually said are two different thigns; they are opposite of one another..


What is sad today is that we have been taught error for so long that we simply accept it as truth.

[dantheman2]

I will call anyone who professes the name of Jesus Christ, believe that he died on the cross and was raised from the dead and cry out to him for the forgiveness of sins my brothers and sisters in Christ. To the church in Thesolanica, Pauls wrote to a church who had some wrong theology. They had begun to say "I was baptized of Paul," or I of Cephus, or I of another. They had begun to follow after teachers and lost their focus on Christ. Yet, they were a CHristian church. Paul wrote to them they should not be divided over teachers, but united in Christ.

If Paul wrote today, I think he would have something similary to say. People who say "I was baptized in a Baptist church and follow their teaching" or "I was baptized in a Presbyterian church and follow their theology" or I of Cathoic, Methodist, or whatever would be rebuked by Paul. I believe the apostle Paul would say to us, do you not realize that you all follow Christ? It is fine and good taht there are many diferent churches, but we are all united in Christ, whether it be Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Anglican, etc. All who call upon the name of Christ will experience salvation and enter into life. I do not agere with much of the theology of some churches, but if a church professes Christ and looks to him for the forgiveness of sin, then they are fellow believers.

I think I'l call it a quit to this thread too. As it seems that dscussion is no longer productive.

Actually, it was Corinth (1 Cor 1:10ff) that Paul was speaking to. Yes, the were Christians but they were Christians who were not doing what God would have them do. Paul loved them but he was also correcting them not to act like they were, not to do the things which they were doing. Paul was telling them to be in unity by doing away with their division and doing what God told them to do, not by accepting each others differences and just agreeing to disagree.

[no name joe]

Actually, it was Corinth (1 Cor 1:10ff) that Paul was speaking to. Yes, the were Christians but they were Christians who were not doing what God would have them do. Paul loved them but he was also correcting them not to act like they were, not to do the things which they were doing. Paul was telling them to be in unity by doing away with their division and doing what God told them to do, not by accepting each others differences and just agreeing to disagree.

I stand corrected on the name of the book. I had Corinthians in mind, but for some reason it came out as Thesalonians.

[John81]

Exactly. Paul didn't say we should ignore wrong teachings or wrong doctrines, he warned against such and told them to abide by the Word of God. When churches go astray and refuse to correct their course they are outside the will of God and become false teachers. After failing to heed correction, true born again Christians are to separate themselves from such because our unity is to be in Christ and we can only have unity in Christ if we are obeying His Word.

Those in churches such as the Anglican, Episcopal, United Methodist and others who fail to heed the call to abide by the Word or separate are rejecting Christ as Lord by their rejection of His Word and rejecting the warning of those He has sent to call them to Him.
Actually, it was Corinth (1 Cor 1:10ff) that Paul was speaking to. Yes, the were Christians but they were Christians who were not doing what God would have them do. Paul loved them but he was also correcting them not to act like they were, not to do the things which they were doing. Paul was telling them to be in unity by doing away with their division and doing what God told them to do, not by accepting each others differences and just agreeing to disagree.

[JerryNumbers]

I will call anyone who professes the name of Jesus Christ, believe that he died on the cross and was raised from the dead and cry out to him for the forgiveness of sins my brothers and sisters in Christ. To the church in Thesolanica, Pauls wrote to a church who had some wrong theology. They had begun to say "I was baptized of Paul," or I of Cephus, or I of another. They had begun to follow after teachers and lost their focus on Christ. Yet, they were a CHristian church. Paul wrote to them they should not be divided over teachers, but united in Christ.

If Paul wrote today, I think he would have something similary to say. People who say "I was baptized in a Baptist church and follow their teaching" or "I was baptized in a Presbyterian church and follow their theology" or I of Cathoic, Methodist, or whatever would be rebuked by Paul. I believe the apostle Paul would say to us, do you not realize that you all follow Christ? It is fine and good taht there are many diferent churches, but we are all united in Christ, whether it be Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Anglican, etc. All who call upon the name of Christ will experience salvation and enter into life. I do not agere with much of the theology of some churches, but if a church professes Christ and looks to him for the forgiveness of sin, then they are fellow believers.

I think I'l call it a quit to this thread too. As it seems that dscussion is no longer productive.

You can call anyone you want Christian brothers and sisters in Christ yet the RCC does not call out to Jesus, they try to steal their way into the fold by other paths, among those are church membership, because their father and mother were Catholic, baptizing, through Marry Eucharist, and in fact, a good Catholic believes that one cannot be saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.


So I refuse to accept anyone as my brother and sister in Christ that tries to steal their way into the fold


By the way, the RCC started their church up sometime after 300 years after the death of Christ after they were thrown out of the true churches of Christ because of their heresy doctrine. Yes, even the early church started by Jesus, and those started by the apostles would not accept their false teaching.


I really feel you've never checked into what the Methodist, Catholic, Anglican, etc teach. I've met several like you that say it does not matter what church a person attends, just as long as the attend church. That is a lie, it does matter, God's truth does matter, a person cannot walk with God while walking in lies, its impossible. We have to meet God, Jesus, on their terms, not mans terms.

[no name joe]

You can call anyone you want Christian brothers and sisters in Christ yet the RCC does not call out to Jesus, they try to steal their way into the fold by other paths, among those are church membership, because their father and mother were Catholic, baptizing, through Marry Eucharist, and in fact, a good Catholic believes that one cannot be saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.


So I refuse to accept anyone as my brother and sister in Christ that tries to steal their way into the fold


By the way, the RCC started their church up sometime after 300 years after the death of Christ after they were thrown out of the true churches of Christ because of their heresy doctrine. Yes, even the early church started by Jesus, and those started by the apostles would not accept their false teaching.


I really feel you've never checked into what the Methodist, Catholic, Anglican, etc teach. I've met several like you that say it does not matter what church a person attends, just as long as the attend church. That is a lie, it does matter, God's truth does matter, a person cannot walk with God while walking in lies, its impossible. We have to meet God, Jesus, on their terms, not mans terms.

I have actually looked and studied extensively church history and Christian doctrine. I have visited many different churches of many different denominations, and have concluded that in the essentials, all mainline denominations are really the same. We might express our faith a little differently, but at the core, we all believe Jesus died, and rose again, and that his God pours out his grace on us through our faith in Christ. Some points where we differ:

1. Calvinism v. Armenian. Does it really matter what we believe? It is what it is. This debate has been going on for centuries. The truth is that God calls people to salvation through Christ. Presbyterians fall into Calvinism, Methodists , Armenian. Baptists are really a mixture these days. But at the core, both doctrines have salvation through grace as poured out in Jesus Christ.

2. Baptism. Is it necessery for salvation? If we do not obey Christ and are not baptized, do we really have faith? This is largely acedemic. Some believe you do not truly have faith unless you follow, and part of following is baptism. Others believe it is purely symbolic. Does it really matter? As a practical matter, I have never met a believer who has not been baptized.

3. Immersion or sprinkling or pouring? There are arguments both ways. In the OT, blood was sprinkled as a purification ritual. In the NT, the Holy Spirit is poured out on believers in baptsim of the Spirit when they accept Christ. Early believers were baptized by immersion in a River. Others in a household where it was likely there was not a body of water to immerse, so what did they do? Perhaps sprinkle or pour. As early as 250 A.D., church leaders have said if a body of running water is unavailalbe, or if a person is physically incapable, pouring is fine. What matters here is the symbolism. Thre is good symbolism in all of it, and reasonable minds can differ as to the meaning of Scripture. I prefer immersion. Others do not. My church does both. The importance is that it is a symbol of what Christ has done and is doing in our hearts through is death and ressurection.

4. Is it ok to drink wine? Reasonalbe minds differ on this. It can go both ways. I think it is fine, others do not. All is good.

5. Speaking in tongues. Did this gift stop in the NT, or does it continue today? I believe it continues to some extent, as I cannot read the Bible otherwise without great intellectual acrobatics.

6. Women in ministry. Did what Paul write apply to a specific situation and culture, or did he write to the universal church? Reasonable minds can differ on this point. There were clearly women deacons in the Bible (Phoebe), and great women leaders (Debrah, the women down by the RIver on Paul's missionary journey, etc.). this is up to the local church to decide. However, it should never be a divisive issue in a local church.

I can go on and on. There are many, many differences of opinion. There are many ways reasonable minds can differ on the interpretation of Scripture. An important question to ask is what does Scripture mean? Is this to be read literally or symbolically? Does this address a specfic situation? If so, what is the universal principal that can be taken away from the passage? What did the writing mean in the context in which it was written? What does it mean today? In Biblical exegesis, good strong minds can reach different conclusions. That is why we have so many denominations. Reasonable minds differ. Two people, earnestly seeking God in prayer can reach to opposing conclusions. It happens over and over again.

So at what time do you propose separating ways? Must we agree 100% of the time? If I agree with all of your beliefs, but I drink wine and you do not, do you separate? If we agree 99% of the time, but I believe that God may give some the gift to tongues today, and you do not, do we separate? If two people agree on everything, but one believes in predestination, and the other does not, are they to separate?

It is easy to say you must follow God's truth. But what is God's truth, when two people, earnestly seeking God, and reading the same text, reach different conclusions? One important scriptural principals is maintaining unity. I believe that as long as a person accepts Jesus, believes in him, and has called out to God, God will, by his grace, bring salvation. That person is my brother or sister in Christ, whether they follow the Baptist, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Methodist, Church of Christ, Lutheren, Catholic, Episcopal, or Anglican Christian tradition.

This really is my last post in this thread. I intended my last to be, but was compelled to respond to this. Obviously, many on this board view me as in rebellion to God, lost, wayward, or whatever you want to call it. And that is fine by me, because I know that God has given me salvation thorugh his son Jesus, that I am seeking to be a follower and disciple of Christ, and that I seek to follow the Holy Spirit on a daily basis has he prompts. So what no man says bothers me. What does bother me is how some are so divisive, judgmental, and claim that it is from God.

I'm out.

[John81]

I have actually looked and studied extensively church history and Christian doctrine. I have visited many different churches of many different denominations, and have concluded that in the essentials, all mainline denominations are really the same. We might express our faith a little differently, but at the core, we all believe Jesus died, and rose again, and that his God pours out his grace on us through our faith in Christ. Some points where we differ:

1. Calvinism v. Armenian. Does it really matter what we believe? It is what it is. This debate has been going on for centuries. The truth is that God calls people to salvation through Christ. Presbyterians fall into Calvinism, Methodists , Armenian. Baptists are really a mixture these days. But at the core, both doctrines have salvation through grace as poured out in Jesus Christ.

2. Baptism. Is it necessery for salvation? If we do not obey Christ and are not baptized, do we really have faith? This is largely acedemic. Some believe you do not truly have faith unless you follow, and part of following is baptism. Others believe it is purely symbolic. Does it really matter? As a practical matter, I have never met a believer who has not been baptized.

3. Immersion or sprinkling or pouring? There are arguments both ways. In the OT, blood was sprinkled as a purification ritual. In the NT, the Holy Spirit is poured out on believers in baptsim of the Spirit when they accept Christ. Early believers were baptized by immersion in a River. Others in a household where it was likely there was not a body of water to immerse, so what did they do? Perhaps sprinkle or pour. As early as 250 A.D., church leaders have said if a body of running water is unavailalbe, or if a person is physically incapable, pouring is fine. What matters here is the symbolism. Thre is good symbolism in all of it, and reasonable minds can differ as to the meaning of Scripture. I prefer immersion. Others do not. My church does both. The importance is that it is a symbol of what Christ has done and is doing in our hearts through is death and ressurection.

4. Is it ok to drink wine? Reasonalbe minds differ on this. It can go both ways. I think it is fine, others do not. All is good.

5. Speaking in tongues. Did this gift stop in the NT, or does it continue today? I believe it continues to some extent, as I cannot read the Bible otherwise without great intellectual acrobatics.

6. Women in ministry. Did what Paul write apply to a specific situation and culture, or did he write to the universal church? Reasonable minds can differ on this point. There were clearly women deacons in the Bible (Phoebe), and great women leaders (Debrah, the women down by the RIver on Paul's missionary journey, etc.). this is up to the local church to decide. However, it should never be a divisive issue in a local church.

I can go on and on. There are many, many differences of opinion. There are many ways reasonable minds can differ on the interpretation of Scripture. An important question to ask is what does Scripture mean? Is this to be read literally or symbolically? Does this address a specfic situation? If so, what is the universal principal that can be taken away from the passage? What did the writing mean in the context in which it was written? What does it mean today? In Biblical exegesis, good strong minds can reach different conclusions. That is why we have so many denominations. Reasonable minds differ. Two people, earnestly seeking God in prayer can reach to opposing conclusions. It happens over and over again.

So at what time do you propose separating ways? Must we agree 100% of the time? If I agree with all of your beliefs, but I drink wine and you do not, do you separate? If we agree 99% of the time, but I believe that God may give some the gift to tongues today, and you do not, do we separate? If two people agree on everything, but one believes in predestination, and the other does not, are they to separate?

It is easy to say you must follow God's truth. But what is God's truth, when two people, earnestly seeking God, and reading the same text, reach different conclusions? One important scriptural principals is maintaining unity. I believe that as long as a person accepts Jesus, believes in him, and has called out to God, God will, by his grace, bring salvation. That person is my brother or sister in Christ, whether they follow the Baptist, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Methodist, Church of Christ, Lutheren, Catholic, Episcopal, or Anglican Christian tradition.

This really is my last post in this thread. I intended my last to be, but was compelled to respond to this. Obviously, many on this board view me as in rebellion to God, lost, wayward, or whatever you want to call it. And that is fine by me, because I know that God has given me salvation thorugh his son Jesus, that I am seeking to be a follower and disciple of Christ, and that I seek to follow the Holy Spirit on a daily basis has he prompts. So what no man says bothers me. What does bother me is how some are so divisive, judgmental, and claim that it is from God.

I'm out.

What is really bothering you is either the conviction of the Holy Ghost trying to help correct you or your conscience at being shown the error of your ways.

From your postings you have obviously not seriously studied church history. From your postings you obviously have not seriously studied Scripture for if you had seriously studied Scripture under the guidane of the Holy Ghost you could in no way believe that "all mainline denominations are really the same".

Points 2, 3 and 6 are absolutely clear and if they were not of importance God wouldn't have placed them in His Word and commanded us regarding them.

Point 1 is highly misleading because one doesn't have to be a Calvinist or an Arminian, and even within both of those lables there are a variety of claims as to what they mean. What is of most importance, which you seem to dismiss, is what Scripture says.

Point 4 is clear and according to God mens "reasonable minds" are folly because His mind is far above ours and His Word is clear regarding booze.

Point 5, if taken in accordance with the whole Word of God, is also clear.

The fact you see all these as unclear, open to "interpretation", though the Word of God says NONE of His Word is open to any private interpretation, and that you seem to think some of these don't matter at all and you are fine with disobeying the Word of God and yoking with those who do likewise, biblically calls into question the state of your eternal soul. The Word of God is VERY clear that if one holds the views you hold they seriously need to examine themselves to discover whether they are actually in the faith or not. Please don't allow pride or your flesh to prevent you from making such an important examination.

[dantheman2]

I've met several like you that say it does not matter what church a person attends, just as long as the attend church. That is a lie, it does matter, God's truth does matter, a person cannot walk with God while walking in lies, its impossible. We have to meet God, Jesus, on their terms, not mans terms.

Exactly