FEATURED MINISTRY ARTICLE: 8 Characteristics of a Counterfeit Christian Church

[Trout]

8 Characteristics of a Counterfeit Christian Church

by Eric Johnson

www.mrm.org

With the leaders of thousands of different religions and churches attempting to make their beliefs appear authentic, it behooves a person to carefully ascertain truth from error. In fact, many leaders of these faiths may call themselves "Christian" and even attempt to convert Christians into their churches.

After all, Jesus Himself said in Matthew 7:15, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." This is why John warned the believers in 1 John 4:1 to "believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." And 1 Thessalonians 5:21 adds, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

Jesus told the Pharisees in Matthew 23:27 that they were "like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness." How can we tell whether or not a particular religious leader (like the Pharisees) ought to be believed, especially when such a person may appear authentic and even claim to be Christian? Let's then consider eight basic doctrinal characteristics of counterfeit groups.

1. Denial in the true nature of God. The rejection of fundamental Christian tenets such as the historical definition of God should be a major warning sign to any perceptive believer. Groups that deny the Christian viewpoint of the deity of Christ and the Trinity typically follow in point-by-point succession each of the other characteristics in this article. One example is The Way International, a group founded by Victor Paul Wierwille, (He once served as a former evangelical pastor. In fact, several cult leaders had their start in authentic Christian denominations and churches.) Wierwille's view of God is Unitarian rather than Trinitarian as he denies that there are three persons in the Godhead. He also claims that Jesus was not God, teaching that the deity of Christ was not a Christian teaching for the Christian church's first 300 years. This is a common (though false) assertion of many cult leaders. Because Wierwille and his church deny the very essence of what makes God who He is, this is a group to avoid.

2. Works-emphasis salvation. Although a counterfeit's doctrine may include the idea that God's grace is important in the role of salvation, the leader normally emphasizes the idea that "salvation" ultimately comes through one's own efforts. Take the Hare Krishna devotees, for instance. These dedicated followers believe that they are in the middle stage of their reincarnation cycle. The way for a dedicated devotee to be born into the next level of existence is to deny himself on this earth while performing good works, including the repetition of the Hare Krishna mantra a total of 1,728 times a day. It may take a devotee who wakes up at 4 A.M. several hours a day to maintain this goal. Those who belong to such work-oriented groups are normally told that they can never know if their works are good enough to please God; instead, they are told to keep trying even harder.

3. The true church. Counterfeit Christian churches often make it a point to cast doubt and suspicion on other churches or denominations, with the leader oftentimes claiming that only his church is true. While many groups hold that the Christian churches do have partial truth, it is taught that full truth has somehow been lost and can now only be found in the "one true church." This may involve utilizing Christian terminology while having a different meaning behind those particular words. An example is the Watchtower Society, also known as the Jehovah's Witnesses. This group, founded by Charles Taze Russell in the 19th century, teaches that those who belong to any church outside of "Jehovah's" church are doomed to annihilation. Only those who belong to the Watchtower organization have a chance to attain "Paradise Earth." This is why Jehovah's Witnesses are adamant in sharing their faith door to door, even attempting to convert those who already attend Christian churches. The Jehovah's Witnesses will often use words that sound reasonable to a nominal Christian (i.e. "Jehovah's Christian Witnesses," "salvation," "Jesus Christ," etc), but they are usually reluctant to tell potential converts that the meanings behind these words are completely different than what has been historically meant.

4. Authoritative leadership. A group where the leader(s) has an authoritative role, even to the extent that they say they speak for God, is another cause for concern. Such leaders claim to have special revelation with God, and their words hold special precedence over their followers. A classic example is Jim Jones, who led almost 1,000 followers to their deaths in the jungle of Guyana in 1978. When men in his charge killed Rep. Jim Ryan (D-CA), a congressman who was visiting "Jonestown" in response to complaints from the relatives of church members, Jones called for his followers to drink cyanide-laced Kool-Aid. The majority of the people willingly followed his commands because they had come to accept his words as truthful and from God. Those who refused were shot. Trusting someone so much that you listen to any command, even to the point of moving to another country and then taking your own life, is something that God never intended.

5. Regimented giving requirement. Another heretical trait is when a church regulates the giving of its people or requires a certain amount of financial giving in order to receive certain privileges related to salvation. For example, the Church of Scientology teaches that people need to discover their true nature through a process called "auditing." This is accomplished by "clearing Engrams" from one's life. One Los Angeles Times article on Scientology religion estimated that it would cost a full "Operating Thetan 8" participant between $200,000 to $400,000 from the beginning of the lessons to the completion. Without these courses, the adherent is unable to clear himself of these unwanted "Engrams." Using finances as a requirement to reach salvation goals is much different than what Jesus, Paul, and Peter preached.

6. Loss of salvation for leaving. Many counterfeit Christian churches insist that if a member decides to leave the group, for whatever reason, they jeopardize their salvation before God. One group with such a belief is the Boston Church of Christ, also known as the International Churches of Christ. The leaders of the ICC teach that there should only be one church in any particular city, which they say is the New Testament model. Members who decide to leave are considered spiritually lost and their salvation is considered negated. This is true even for those who leave because they decide to attend a Christian church outside the ICC network. Since the ICC does not recognize the baptisms of other denominations, and since the doctrine of baptism is considered a necessity in order to receive salvation, leaving the ICC negates the baptism that was given when the person joined the church. Holding a person's salvation hostage in such a way is certainly not biblical.

7. Authority beyond the Bible. Although the Bible is sometimes utilized and even considered beneficial by a number of counterfeit groups, it is not considered as a completely authoritative scripture. Therefore, extrabiblical writings are necessary. Normally these scriptures are considered to have more authority than the dated Bible. The Christian Science religion is one example. Those who inquire into this religion are told that Mary Baker Eddy's 1875 pantheistic book Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures is a "reference book for life," which is needed by a person who hopes to discover "practical, spiritual answers for health and healing, security, and lasting relationships." This book must be studied in order to ascertain full truth. When the Bible contradicts Eddy's book, then the Bible is considered to be wrong or misunderstood.

8. Unique truths never before revealed. The idea that a hidden mystery or new truth is available through a particular church should be taken as a strong sign that this group is a counterfeit Christian religion. In addition, many such groups may change their doctrines over time. Christians believe that God has very clearly shown His truth through the pages of the Bible; therefore, new or fluctuating doctrine—especially that which contradicts the Bible—ought to be taken with a great deal of caution. The Unification Church (numerous front names include "Association of Families for Unification and World Peace" or "Family Federation for World Peace and Unification") was founded by Korean "Rev." Sun Myung Moon. He teaches that Jesus never fulfilled his mission. Therefore, Moon says that he was commissioned to finish the job that Jesus never finished. Moon's followers (often known as "Moonies") accept Moon as a Christ-like representative on earth whose teachings supersede the Bible. The Unification Church theology has evolved over time, and there may be some drastic changes once he dies in the very near future.

Conclusion Not all counterfeits may be characterized by every one of these traits. However, a person should be cautious when considering a church that is marked by one or two of these characteristics, especially any of the first three in the list. Churches with three or more of the above characteristics ought to be avoided at all cost. In addition, there are some Christian churches that may not have doctrinal problems but are rather sociological abusers. For instance, some churches have controlling "discipleship" programs or church memberships with high levels of guilt or feelings of inadequacy. These types of groups also ought to be avoided. If you believe that your church has problems in either doctrinal or sociological areas, you would be wise not to get involved. If you are already a member, you need to consider leaving. As John 8:32-33 says, "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

For more articles like this one, please visit www.mrm.org

The articles featured in this section are submitted by our guests, some of whom are not acclimated to heated debate. This section is moderated more closely than many other sections of the forum, please conduct yourselves accordingly.

[Minnesota]

Got a link, Trout?

[Trout]

Here's a link to the article, Minn.

http://www.mrm.org/multimedia/text/counterfeit-christian-church.html

[Minnesota]

Thanks,

I assume you received permission from mrm to reprint the piece.

Care to post it so we all know everything is still kosher on Tweb?

[Ryokan]

I gotta say, Trout, I don't think the RCC, the EOC, or the Anglican Church would pass this test. It seems as if the author is saying "Attend a mainline protestant Church or else!"

[Tickle Me Mercury]

The only place where I would take issue is his use of the Hare Krishna movement or the "Church" of Scientology as examples. If he wants to show the traits of counterfeit Christian churches, then to use examples that are in no way associated with Christianity seems a bit out of place.

If he wanted to show why any other religions are different and incompatible with Christian teachings, that would be a different story.

[Trout]

I gotta say, Trout, I don't think the RCC, the EOC, or the Anglican Church would pass this test. It seems as if the author is saying "Attend a mainline protestant Church or else!"


Do you think those churches deny the nature of God?

[Trout]

The only place where I would take issue is his use of the Hare Krishna movement or the "Church" of Scientology as examples. If he wants to show the traits of counterfeit Christian churches, then to use examples that are in no way associated with Christianity seems a bit out of place.

If he wanted to show why any other religions are different and incompatible with Christian teachings, that would be a different story.

Tom Cruise says that you can practice Christianity and Scientology in complete harmony.

The Hare Krishna tie in wasn't the best analogy.

[Ryokan]

Do you think those churches deny the nature of God?
4. Authoritative leadership. A group where the leader(s) has an authoritative role, even to the extent that they say they speak for God, is another cause for concern. Such leaders claim to have special revelation with God, and their words hold special precedence over their followers. A classic example is Jim Jones, who led almost 1,000 followers to their deaths in the jungle of Guyana in 1978. When men in his charge killed Rep. Jim Ryan (D-CA), a congressman who was visiting "Jonestown" in response to complaints from the relatives of church members, Jones called for his followers to drink cyanide-laced Kool-Aid. The majority of the people willingly followed his commands because they had come to accept his words as truthful and from God. Those who refused were shot. Trusting someone so much that you listen to any command, even to the point of moving to another country and then taking your own life, is something that God never intended.
2. Works-emphasis salvation. Although a counterfeit's doctrine may include the idea that God's grace is important in the role of salvation, the leader normally emphasizes the idea that "salvation" ultimately comes through one's own efforts. Take the Hare Krishna devotees, for instance. These dedicated followers believe that they are in the middle stage of their reincarnation cycle. The way for a dedicated devotee to be born into the next level of existence is to deny himself on this earth while performing good works, including the repetition of the Hare Krishna mantra a total of 1,728 times a day. It may take a devotee who wakes up at 4 A.M. several hours a day to maintain this goal. Those who belong to such work-oriented groups are normally told that they can never know if their works are good enough to please God; instead, they are told to keep trying even harder.
3. The true church. Counterfeit Christian churches often make it a point to cast doubt and suspicion on other churches or denominations, with the leader oftentimes claiming that only his church is true. While many groups hold that the Christian churches do have partial truth, it is taught that full truth has somehow been lost and can now only be found in the "one true church." This may involve utilizing Christian terminology while having a different meaning behind those particular words. An example is the Watchtower Society, also known as the Jehovah's Witnesses. This group, founded by Charles Taze Russell in the 19th century, teaches that those who belong to any church outside of "Jehovah's" church are doomed to annihilation. Only those who belong to the Watchtower organization have a chance to attain "Paradise Earth." This is why Jehovah's Witnesses are adamant in sharing their faith door to door, even attempting to convert those who already attend Christian churches. The Jehovah's Witnesses will often use words that sound reasonable to a nominal Christian (i.e. "Jehovah's Christian Witnesses," "salvation," "Jesus Christ," etc), but they are usually reluctant to tell potential converts that the meanings behind these words are completely different than what has been historically meant.
7. Authority beyond the Bible. Although the Bible is sometimes utilized and even considered beneficial by a number of counterfeit groups, it is not considered as a completely authoritative scripture. Therefore, extrabiblical writings are necessary. Normally these scriptures are considered to have more authority than the dated Bible. The Christian Science religion is one example. Those who inquire into this religion are told that Mary Baker Eddy's 1875 pantheistic book Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures is a "reference book for life," which is needed by a person who hopes to discover "practical, spiritual answers for health and healing, security, and lasting relationships." This book must be studied in order to ascertain full truth. When the Bible contradicts Eddy's book, then the Bible is considered to be wrong or misunderstood.

All three of those Churches could be considered to meet one or several of these standards.

[Tickle Me Mercury]

Tom Cruise says that you can practice Christianity and Scientology in complete harmony.

The Hare Krishna tie in wasn't the best analogy.

Well, Tom Cruise is something of an idiot, and even at his best I wouldn't trust his word as a theological scholor.

That said, Thich Nhat Hanh says that one can practice Buddhism and Christianity without conflict. This doesn't mean that Buddhism masquerades as "the true form" of Christianity or the completion of Christianity as does Mormonism or the WS—as well as many small cults. Scientology doesn't make such claims, only that the two can "coexist" without issue. However, any inquiry into the actual religious beliefs of the CoS and I think even that falls apart. The practice of Dianetics might be able to exist harmoniously with a Christian theological system, but intricate, involved stories about galactic volcanoes and invisible alien parasites might be an entirely different matter.

My point is: I don't know anything about the doctrines of Scientology making a claim to be a "Christian Church," so any attempt to discredit it as a "Counterfeit Christianity" is somewhat pointless.

[FreezBee]

My point is: I don't know anything about the doctrines of Scientology making a claim to be a "Christian Church," so any attempt to discredit it as a "Counterfeit Christianity" is somewhat pointless.

The problem for MRM might be that they do not want to alienate any Christian denomination that acknowledges the Nicene Creed, and therefore they give non-Christian examples, which is irrelevant when the focus is on "Counterfeit Christian Churches", or Christian examples that are clearly non-Nicene such as the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Anyway, MRM apparently means "Mormonism Research Ministry. According to their Statement of Purpose (http://www.mrm.org/who_are_we/what_is_mrm/), MRM "is a missionary/apologetics organization that was organized to propagate the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to critically evaluate the differences between Mormonism and biblical Christianity", so its a missionary, evangelical organization with a focus on Mormonism versus biblical Christianity. The purpose breaks down into sub-purposes, two of which are:

Our purpose is to take the gospel directly to the Mormon people by conducting outreaches at Mormon events such as temple openings and pageants.

Our purpose is to provide individual counseling with those who are questioning their Mormon faith, as well as help those who need information to share their faith with those in Mormonism.

So, apparently they mission is mainly directed towards Mormons in order to teach them the gospel. All-in-all, it's a movement to bring Mormons back to "real" Christianity.

Is that of much interest for those of us, to whom Mormons simply are "Elder this-or-that" in a suit-with-tie?

My Internet access is from the local library, and occasionally the obligatory Mormon twins drop in here. One day this happened, I happened to be using a computer reserved by one of the twins. He stood at some distance looking nervously at me. The other twin occupied the neighboring computer, but after a few minutes told me that his friend had reserved the computer that I was using. I apologized and said that I hadn't been aware of that and left the computer.

Well, I considered the situation funny, so I don't mind Mormons :lol:


- FreezBee

[Jezz]

3. The true church. Counterfeit Christian churches often make it a point to cast doubt and suspicion on other churches or denominations, with the leader oftentimes claiming that only his church is true. While many groups hold that the Christian churches do have partial truth, it is taught that full truth has somehow been lost and can now only be found in the "one true church." This may involve utilizing Christian terminology while having a different meaning behind those particular words. An example is the Watchtower Society, also known as the Jehovah's Witnesses. This group, founded by Charles Taze Russell in the 19th century, teaches that those who belong to any church outside of "Jehovah's" church are doomed to annihilation. Only those who belong to the Watchtower organization have a chance to attain "Paradise Earth." This is why Jehovah's Witnesses are adamant in sharing their faith door to door, even attempting to convert those who already attend Christian churches. The Jehovah's Witnesses will often use words that sound reasonable to a nominal Christian (i.e. "Jehovah's Christian Witnesses," "salvation," "Jesus Christ," etc), but they are usually reluctant to tell potential converts that the meanings behind these words are completely different than what has been historically meant.
This point is self-contradictory. The entire article is about casting doubt and suspicion on other churches and denominations - those churches which do not fit the criteria on the list.

This point is also contradicted in turn by point 8:

8. Unique truths never before revealed. The idea that a hidden mystery or new truth is available through a particular church should be taken as a strong sign that this group is a counterfeit Christian religion. In addition, many such groups may change their doctrines over time.
The idea that there is no single church that is the Church (which is implicit in point 3) is a unique truth that was never before revealed before the Reformation.

Indeed, many of the points on this list are contradicted by point 8. The above was the one that stuck out at me the most.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

This point is self-contradictory. The entire article is about casting doubt and suspicion on other churches and denominations - those churches which do not fit the criteria on the list.That's not a contradiction. Claiming that one's own denomination is the one and only true one is not the same as saying that some other churches are counterfeit in their presentation of Christianity. Just like casting aspersion on non-organic farms doesn't mean I'm claiming to have the one and only organic farm.

Aditionally, I'm pretty sure the reference to "new truths" was intended to refer to the claim that there is new revelation that has been given to the leadership of the particular denomination. None of the Protestant Reformers would ever have said that.

[Rani]

Although I agree with his points I do find it ironic that he is contradicting point 7, (Authority beyond the Bible), by making this list in the first place.

[1.61803399]

8 Characteristics of a Counterfeit Christian Church

by Eric Johnson

www.mrm.org

1. Denial in the true nature of God.
I agree with this one, kinda basic and obvious, but true and given the article a good starting point. Should have been expanded to denial of Christological truths, but is acceptable as is.

2. Works-emphasis salvation.
Had to reread this one a few times (works-salvation has been wrongly attributed to Catholicism) to be sure, but find nothing objectionable here.

3. The true church. Counterfeit Christian churches often make it a point to cast doubt and suspicion on other churches or denominations, with the leader oftentimes claiming that only his church is true. While many groups hold that the Christian churches do have partial truth, it is taught that full truth has somehow been lost and can now only be found in the "one true church."
Here I have a problem. If truth is objective, then one church's theology is going to be closer than the others. Indeed, I fail to see why anyone should hold to a church that doesn't believe that it is the closest to the teachings of Christ. While this point is not self-contradictory, if the writer (or any who agree with him) holds to a particular denomination then he is contradicting himself.

4. Authoritative leadership. A group where the leader(s) has an authoritative role, even to the extent that they say they speak for God, is another cause for concern. Such leaders claim to have special revelation with God, and their words hold special precedence over their followers.

Authoritative Leadership is a bad thing? Definately a problem here. There is a difference between an authoritative leader and a cult leader, although the author does not acknowledge that. Simply from experience with authoritative leaders at work or in politics one should realize that they are not each heading a cult.

5. Regimented giving requirement.
no problem here

6. Loss of salvation for leaving. Many counterfeit Christian churches insist that if a member decides to leave the group, for whatever reason, they jeopardize their salvation before God.

This can only really be agreed to with a slight change: replace jeopardize with lose. If a Christian leaves the faith (no longer holds "mereChristianity"), then there is a jeopardy to their soul, as they are moving away from truth.
This point seems to also assume once saved always saved, which is not held by all Christian churches.
Furthermore, this point only holds if there is no authentic Christian Church that claims to be the one true Chruch (insert arguments from point 3 here). IFF one belonged to the one true Church, and left it, then would would necessarily be jeopardizing their soul.

7. Authority beyond the Bible. Although the Bible is sometimes utilized and even considered beneficial by a number of counterfeit groups, it is not considered as a completely authoritative scripture. Therefore, extrabiblical writings are necessary. Normally these scriptures are considered to have more authority than the dated Bible.

Iff the Bible openly claimed sufficiency, made no reference to authority outside itself, and included the canon of Scripture, then I could agree to this point. Unfortunately, none of these criteria are met. As to recently discovered "extra-testaments" or works adding to Scripture, I can agree that those are things to be concerned about.

8. Unique truths never before revealed. The idea that a hidden mystery or new truth is available through a particular church should be taken as a strong sign that this group is a counterfeit Christian religion. In addition, many such groups may change their doctrines over time. Christians believe that God has very clearly shown His truth through the pages of the Bible; therefore, new or fluctuating doctrine—especially that which contradicts the Bible—ought to be taken with a great deal of caution.

I agree on the name of the point and the opening sentence, any esoteric knoowledge is contrary to Christianity. However, we return to sola scriptura and a condemnation of development of doctrine in the following sentences. Now, doctrine that changes to contradict earlier teachings of the church in question are obviously a cause for concern. But as we stand on the shoulders of the generation before us, we see things differently then they do, and new facets of doctrine are brought out more clearly.

Conclusion Not all counterfeits may be characterized by every one of these traits. However, a person should be cautious when considering a church that is marked by one or two of these characteristics, especially any of the first three in the list. Churches with three or more of the above characteristics ought to be avoided at all cost.

According to the author, I belong to a counterfit church, as it claims to be the One, True Church (3), has authoritative leadership (4), does not teach sola scriptura (7), and has devlopment of doctrine (8). Inasmuch as it claims to be The Church, it also believes that those who leave it place their souls in more peril than had they stayed (6).

Then again, to apply the list to itself: sola scriptura (7) would have fallen under (8) until the reformation, as would lack of authoritative leadership (4). The notion of one true church (3) would have been understood in the existence of only one Church (in the west RCC, in the East Orthodox), and so otherwise would be novel invention through the reformation (8). As one true Church was understood, then leaving=jeopardy (6) would also be assumed and otherwise novel until the reformation (8). As #8 assumes sola scriptura (7) which has been removed so #8 must be removed by its own admission So, judging the list by itself, it is not coherent, let alone, authentic Christianity.

Of those that are left (1,2,5): #2 can only be accepted pending clarification and #1 needs expanding particularly into Christological concerns.

So the list is reduced to:

#1 Denial in the true nature of God (given additions, probably additional points on Christological truths, sin, salvation, etc.)
#2 Erroneous soteriology (including works-alone)
#5 Regimented giving requirement
(h/t to Jezz for pointing out the self contradictions)

As to Freezbee's point of examples not to offend Nicene churches, it was a wasted effort:

The Nicene Creed contradicts points 3 (and by implication 6), 7, and 8. It is an extra-biblical text teaching doctrine not explicitly stated in the Bible (7, 8), including belief in "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church (3). It contradicts a top three, and three of the characteristics, therefore "ought to be avoided at all costs"

chris

[johnmartin]

8 Characteristics of a Counterfeit Christian Church

by Eric Johnson

With the leaders of thousands of different religions and churches attempting to make their beliefs appear authentic, it behooves a person to carefully ascertain truth from error. In fact, many leaders of these faiths may call themselves "Christian" and even attempt to convert Christians into their churches.

After all, Jesus Himself said in Matthew 7:15, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." This is why John warned the believers in 1 John 4:1 to "believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." And 1 Thessalonians 5:21 adds, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

Jesus told the Pharisees in Matthew 23:27 that they were "like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness." How can we tell whether or not a particular religious leader (like the Pharisees) ought to be believed, especially when such a person may appear authentic and even claim to be Christian? Let's then consider eight basic doctrinal characteristics of counterfeit groups.

From here the essay should move to direct scriptural evidence for the means to determine the true from the false church. What are those means according to scripture and the history of the church?

1. Denial in the true nature of God. The rejection of fundamental Christian tenets such as the historical definition of God should be a major warning sign to any perceptive believer. Groups that deny the Christian viewpoint of the deity of Christ and the Trinity typically follow in point-by-point succession each of the other characteristics in this article. One example is The Way International, a group founded by Victor Paul Wierwille, (He once served as a former evangelical pastor. In fact, several cult leaders had their start in authentic Christian denominations and churches.) Wierwille's view of God is Unitarian rather than Trinitarian as he denies that there are three persons in the Godhead. He also claims that Jesus was not God, teaching that the deity of Christ was not a Christian teaching for the Christian church's first 300 years. This is a common (though false) assertion of many cult leaders. Because Wierwille and his church deny the very essence of what makes God who He is, this is a group to avoid.

Why is it that evangelical some ministers end up in "cults" and whats the difference between a denomination and a cult? Who or what determines this?

2. Works-emphasis salvation. Although a counterfeit's doctrine may include the idea that God's grace is important in the role of salvation, the leader normally emphasizes the idea that "salvation" ultimately comes through one's own efforts. Take the Hare Krishna devotees, for instance. These dedicated followers believe that they are in the middle stage of their reincarnation cycle. The way for a dedicated devotee to be born into the next level of existence is to deny himself on this earth while performing good works, including the repetition of the Hare Krishna mantra a total of 1,728 times a day. It may take a devotee who wakes up at 4 A.M. several hours a day to maintain this goal. Those who belong to such work-oriented groups are normally told that they can never know if their works are good enough to please God; instead, they are told to keep trying even harder.

This point seems rather odd as every religion known to mankind requires its members to do things. If we classify doing something as a work, then this measure is impossible to use. Some denominations say you only need to have faith to be saved yet the bible calls faith a work as follows.

1 Thessalonians 1:3 (http://www.theologyweb.com/passage/?book_id=59&chapter=1&verse=3&version=49&context=verse)
constantly bearing in mind your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the presence of our God and Father

2 Thessalonians 1:11 (http://www.theologyweb.com/passage/?book_id=60&chapter=1&verse=11&version=49&context=verse)
To this end also we pray for you always, that our God will count you worthy of your calling, and fulfill every desire for goodness and the work of faith with power,


Therefore every Christian denomination uses works which include faith.



3. The true church. Counterfeit Christian churches often make it a point to cast doubt and suspicion on other churches or denominations, with the leader oftentimes claiming that only his church is true. While many groups hold that the Christian churches do have partial truth, it is taught that full truth has somehow been lost and can now only be found in the "one true church." This may involve utilizing Christian terminology while having a different meaning behind those particular words. An example is the Watchtower Society, also known as the Jehovah's Witnesses. This group, founded by Charles Taze Russell in the 19th century, teaches that those who belong to any church outside of "Jehovah's" church are doomed to annihilation. Only those who belong to the Watchtower organization have a chance to attain "Paradise Earth." This is why Jehovah's Witnesses are adamant in sharing their faith door to door, even attempting to convert those who already attend Christian churches. The Jehovah's Witnesses will often use words that sound reasonable to a nominal Christian (i.e. "Jehovah's Christian Witnesses," "salvation," "Jesus Christ," etc), but they are usually reluctant to tell potential converts that the meanings behind these words are completely different than what has been historically meant.

Well if you are in the true church then why wouldn’t it caste doubt on all other churches? This seems to be obvious to me. In fact if the church was a false church it would be more likely to not care about other churches. This then would be one mark of a false church, that it was indifferent to the others.



4. Authoritative leadership. A group where the leader(s) has an authoritative role, even to the extent that they say they speak for God, is another cause for concern. Such leaders claim to have special revelation with God, and their words hold special precedence over their followers. A classic example is Jim Jones, who led almost 1,000 followers to their deaths in the jungle of Guyana in 1978. When men in his charge killed Rep. Jim Ryan (D-CA), a congressman who was visiting "Jonestown" in response to complaints from the relatives of church members, Jones called for his followers to drink cyanide-laced Kool-Aid. The majority of the people willingly followed his commands because they had come to accept his words as truthful and from God. Those who refused were shot. Trusting someone so much that you listen to any command, even to the point of moving to another country and then taking your own life, is something that God never intended.

So leaders in the true church don't have any authority? Or some authority? If only some then why and where did it come from? If it came from God then it must be total, if from man then at best only partial. Either way it seems necessary that the true church must have some authority with its leaders, otherwise anarchy would reign supreme.



5. Regimented giving requirement. Another heretical trait is when a church regulates the giving of its people or requires a certain amount of financial giving in order to receive certain privileges related to salvation. For example, the Church of Scientology teaches that people need to discover their true nature through a process called "auditing." This is accomplished by "clearing Engrams" from one's life. One Los Angeles Times article on Scientology religion estimated that it would cost a full "Operating Thetan 8" participant between $200,000 to $400,000 from the beginning of the lessons to the completion. Without these courses, the adherent is unable to clear himself of these unwanted "Engrams." Using finances as a requirement to reach salvation goals is much different than what Jesus, Paul, and Peter preached.

Isn’t alms giving biblical? Shouldn’t we give to the poor? What’s wrong with this?



6. Loss of salvation for leaving. Many counterfeit Christian churches insist that if a member decides to leave the group, for whatever reason, they jeopardize their salvation before God. One group with such a belief is the Boston Church of Christ, also known as the International Churches of Christ. The leaders of the ICC teach that there should only be one church in any particular city, which they say is the New Testament model. Members who decide to leave are considered spiritually lost and their salvation is considered negated. This is true even for those who leave because they decide to attend a Christian church outside the ICC network. Since the ICC does not recognize the baptisms of other denominations, and since the doctrine of baptism is considered a necessity in order to receive salvation, leaving the ICC negates the baptism that was given when the person joined the church. Holding a person's salvation hostage in such a way is certainly not biblical.

Well if the church is the true church then to leave it is to move into a false church. But a false church is then either run by men who are not from God or even worse, from the father of lies. How can it be reasoned otherwise?



7. Authority beyond the Bible. Although the Bible is sometimes utilized and even considered beneficial by a number of counterfeit groups, it is not considered as a completely authoritative scripture. Therefore, extrabiblical writings are necessary. Normally these scriptures are considered to have more authority than the dated Bible. The Christian Science religion is one example. Those who inquire into this religion are told that Mary Baker Eddy's 1875 pantheistic book Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures is a "reference book for life," which is needed by a person who hopes to discover "practical, spiritual answers for health and healing, security, and lasting relationships." This book must be studied in order to ascertain full truth. When the Bible contradicts Eddy's book, then the Bible is considered to be wrong or misunderstood.

Everyone has an authority beyond the bible. It is impossible not to do this as the bible doesn’t give us clear instruction in every detail on everything to be practiced in the Christian life. For example there is nothing in the NT stating how often we are to ‘do this’ as commanded by Jesus at the last supper.

8. Unique truths never before revealed. The idea that a hidden mystery or new truth is available through a particular church should be taken as a strong sign that this group is a counterfeit Christian religion. In addition, many such groups may change their doctrines over time. Christians believe that God has very clearly shown His truth through the pages of the Bible; therefore, new or fluctuating doctrine—especially that which contradicts the Bible—ought to be taken with a great deal of caution. The Unification Church (numerous front names include "Association of Families for Unification and World Peace" or "Family Federation for World Peace and Unification") was founded by Korean "Rev." Sun Myung Moon. He teaches that Jesus never fulfilled his mission. Therefore, Moon says that he was commissioned to finish the job that Jesus never finished. Moon's followers (often known as "Moonies") accept Moon as a Christ-like representative on earth whose teachings supersede the Bible. The Unification Church theology has evolved over time, and there may be some drastic changes once he dies in the very near future. Every religion has unique revelations, that’s what makes each religion different. This criteria is accordingly almost impossible to use effectively.



Conclusion Not all counterfeits may be characterized by every one of these traits. However, a person should be cautious when considering a church that is marked by one or two of these characteristics, especially any of the first three in the list. Churches with three or more of the above characteristics ought to be avoided at all cost. In addition, there are some Christian churches that may not have doctrinal problems but are rather sociological abusers. For instance, some churches have controlling "discipleship" programs or church memberships with high levels of guilt or feelings of inadequacy. These types of groups also ought to be avoided. If you believe that your church has problems in either doctrinal or sociological areas, you would be wise not to get involved. If you are already a member, you need to consider leaving. As John 8:32-33 says, "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

Lets see you answer the above questions. Take one at a time and develop your arguments accordingly from both reason and the bible.

JM

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

So leaders in the true church don't have any authority? Or some authority? If only some then why and where did it come from? If it came from God then it must be total, if from man then at best only partial. Either way it seems necessary that the true church must have some authority with its leaders, otherwise anarchy would reign supreme.A few people have reacted to this point in what looks to me like a somewhat reactionary, over-sensitive and visibly defensive manner (but then, I'm no psychologist, that's just the impression I get).

The article is talking about situations in which a leader claims to have a unique authority "to the extent that they say they speak for God." Johnmartin, this is clearly not the same as simply saying that a church leader, or more properly, church leadership, doesn't have "any authority," is it?

In context it looks pretty obvious to me that what the article is referring to is a person who makes themself beyond question, and the denomination is answerable to that person. If, johnmartin, that's how ytou see the Pope (and let's face it, that's what you were leaping to defend), then I think the concern this article raises applies perfectly to him. If that's not how you see the Pope, then relax, don't be so paranoid.

[johnmartin]

A few people have reacted to this point in what looks to me like a somewhat reactionary, over-sensitive and visibly defensive manner (but then, I'm no psychologist, that's just the impression I get).

The article is talking about situations in which a leader claims to have a unique authority "to the extent that they say they speak for God." Johnmartin, this is clearly not the same as simply saying that a church leader, or more properly, church leadership, doesn't have "any authority," is it?

In context it looks pretty obvious to me that what the article is referring to is a person who makes themself beyond question, and the denomination is answerable to that person. If, johnmartin, that's how you see the Pope (and let's face it, that's what you were leaping to defend), then I think the concern this article raises applies perfectly to him. If that's not how you see the Pope, then relax, don't be so paranoid.Try this simple argument - If God instituted an authority structure in his church and that authority has the power to teach from God, then that authority is infallible. If it is not infallible then it is not from God. So the conclusion is this - You want to find the true church that claims its teaching is from God, then it must claim to be infallible. You want to find a false church from man, then that church will not claim infallibility. This is a simple argument but a very powerful one. I'm interested to see how you answer it. There are only so many positions to take. Either

God did not institute any teaching authority in the church.
God did institute teaching authority in the church.
The bible and church history as attested by the Catholic and Orthodox churches both teach God did institute such authority. Hence position 1 above is not really tenable. Even if you ignore church history you must then ask what authority did God give men, if not men in positions of authority then it can only be the bible. But the bible doesn't teach this position.

According to men taking positions of authority instituted by God, many of the reformed and post reformed churches deny this doctrine. And why wouldn't they. If they say God did institute an authority then the reformed churches are no longer possibly the true churches as they don't have apostolic origins nor apostolic succession. The only two churches that can be possibly the true church are the Catholic and the Orthodox and as these both have very similar belief systems on just about everything except the papacy and possibly marriage and contraception, then it becomes highly likely that these church must be of Apostolic origin. Once you find out that the Catholic church teaches that its teaching is infallible not only according to the extra ordinary teaching authority of the pope, but also according to the ordinary teaching authority of the church, (in the area of faith and morals) then the game is over. You've found the true church.

I look forward to a powerful answer to rebut this simple proof.

JM

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

"Powerful responses" are only required where powerful arguments have been offered. I suspect the totality of the power of your above post lies in the words "If God instituted an authority structure in his church and that authority has the power to teach from God." What is "the power to teach from God," johnmartin? Everything hangs on that. If you just mean "the power to be infallible," then this is just a case of tail chasing.

[johnmartin]

"Powerful responses" are only required where powerful arguments have been offered. I suspect the totality of the power of your above post lies in the words "If God instituted an authority structure in his church and that authority has the power to teach from God." What is "the power to teach from God," johnmartin? Everything hangs on that. If you just mean "the power to be infallible," then this is just a case of tail chasing.

The very authority of God given to men to teach in the name of God. When God does this he protects those men to whom he gives such power. Fr example the prophets of the OT were given authority to teach, preach the word of God. So too in the NT men were given gifts to preach and teach from God. Such authority was formalized by Jesus fulfilling the OT command of Israel to become a kingdom of priests within a new covenant. The new Israel is the church based on the OT kingdom of David whereby Christ is the king in the place of David and Peter is the prime minister who alone is given the keys and the other Apostles are ministers or Bishops in the New Testament kingdom of priests. The bishops who were in offices specifically ordained by Jesus with the powers from God to teach, govern and sanctify the church through the NT oaths. It is through these oaths that the covenant is made whereby the name of God is sworn to invoke Gods power to effect what is signified by each sacrament. For example -

Baptism effects the removal of sin through the action of God and the symbolism of washing. The action of God is made present by swearing to oath in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Eucharist effects nourishment of the soul by God effecting the symbolic action of bread and wine which become the body and blood of Christ through the swearing of the covenant oaths instituted in the upper room.
The seven sacraments effect the power of ordination to sanctify but what of the other two powers to teach and to govern. Teaching is through the magisterium which is composed of the successors to the first bishops and the first pope which is Peter. Governing is also through the laws of the church as found in canon law.

In summary the power to teach is to teach in the place of God himself. When the bishops teaching in union with the pope or the pope in a definitive manner, or even according to the ordinary teaching magisterium, then such teaching is binding. If this teaching is effected in an official manner to propose doctrine to the church for practice and belief then such teaching is binding because it is God teaching his church through the offices of the bishops and pope..

JM

[Tickle Me Mercury]

Authoritative Leadership is a bad thing? Definately a problem here. There is a difference between an authoritative leader and a cult leader, although the author does not acknowledge that. Simply from experience with authoritative leaders at work or in politics one should realize that they are not each heading a cult.

I think the issue is more of connotation than anything else. If "authoritative" leadership is taken to mean a leader who forces his followers to act against their will or coerces them in some other fashion, than yes, it is a bad thing. If it simple means that a leader is decisive, strong, and is able to effectively wield authority then no. That's what a leader should be.

As far as the word "cult," what is or isn't a cult is entirely subjective, and the word is generally used only as a pejorative by outsiders as a means of ridicule. Denotatively, the word has a meaning that indicates a somewhat closed, autonomous subset of society that is very secretive and shuns outside influence. Also, we generally use the word cult to describe a group where people have been "brainwashed" or "reprogrammed" or are being coerced in some way, as described above—often because the followers have discarded many of the mores of the outside society. Subjectively, people say "cult" about things that they don't understand, things that they fear, or any sub-culture which doesn't jive well with the rest of society. Keep in mind that Christianity, in it's origins, could have easily been described by the Romans as a subversive cult (assuming that had such a word). And in that sense, as I have studied and explored different religious traditions throughout my life I have often been told that I was involved in a cult by some Evangelicals who simply did not understand the idea's of the religion.

[Meh_Gerbil]

Question:
If a Jew were to analyze the early church, circa 35AD, how many items on that list would he be checking off?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

The very authority of God given to men to teach in the name of God. When God does this he protects those men to whom he gives such power. Fr example the prophets of the OT were given authority to teach, preach the word of God. So too in the NT men were given gifts to preach and teach from God. Such authority was formalized by Jesus fulfilling the OT command of Israel to become a kingdom of priests within a new covenant. The new Israel is the church based on the OT kingdom of David whereby Christ is the king in the place of David and Peter is the prime minister who alone is given the keys and the other Apostles are ministers or Bishops in the New Testament kingdom of priests. The bishops who were in offices specifically ordained by Jesus with the powers from God to teach, govern and sanctify the church through the NT oaths. It is through these oaths that the covenant is made whereby the name of God is sworn to invoke Gods power to effect what is signified by each sacrament.The rub arises. I suspect the author fo the article has no problem with the claim that the Apostles had a unique authority as spokespeople for Christ, or with the claim that we are all priests of in the New Covenant. But when the baggage starts entering in, like Peter being a "Prime minister," and more important, the unstated parts here, like the concept of there being a successor of Peter who has the same authority, well, you can see where the ways start to part.In summary the power to teach is to teach in the place of God himself. When the bishops teaching in union with the pope or the pope in a definitive manner, or even according to the ordinary teaching magisterium, then such teaching is binding.If that's what you meant in your previous post, then it becomes viciously circular. You said that church leaders do have authority because God gave them the power to speak for Him, and now you reveal that what you meant by that is just that they have the God given ability to be infallible. In other words, unless a person accepts apap infallibility, meh, what have you offered them?

[1.61803399]

I think the issue is more of connotation than anything else. If "authoritative" leadership is taken to mean a leader who forces his followers to act against their will or coerces them in some other fashion, than yes, it is a bad thing. If it simple means that a leader is decisive, strong, and is able to effectively wield authority then no. That's what a leader should be.

As far as the word "cult," what is or isn't a cult is entirely subjective, and the word is generally used only as a pejorative by outsiders as a means of ridicule. Denotatively, the word has a meaning that indicates a somewhat closed, autonomous subset of society that is very secretive and shuns outside influence. Also, we generally use the word cult to describe a group where people have been "brainwashed" or "reprogrammed" or are being coerced in some way, as described above—often because the followers have discarded many of the mores of the outside society. Subjectively, people say "cult" about things that they don't understand, things that they fear, or any sub-culture which doesn't jive well with the rest of society. Keep in mind that Christianity, in it's origins, could have easily been described by the Romans as a subversive cult (assuming that had such a word). And in that sense, as I have studied and explored different religious traditions throughout my life I have often been told that I was involved in a cult by some Evangelicals who simply did not understand the idea's of the religion.


The problem is arguing the connotation, without including the denotation. The author's bias is to the mainline Prot denoms, so he makes his list to condemn others. Unfortunatley since he contradicts himself so much, I can't take it seriously.

chris

[johnmartin]

The rub arises. I suspect the author of the article has no problem with the claim that the Apostles had a unique authority as spokespeople for Christ, or with the claim that we are all priests of in the New Covenant. But when the baggage starts entering in, like Peter being a "Prime minister," and more important, the unstated parts here, like the concept of there being a successor of Peter who has the same authority, well, you can see where the ways start to part.Why wouldn't there be a successor to the head of the church. Peter alone was given the keys in Matt 16 as a fulfillment of Is22 in the OT kingdom of David. The papacy is clearly taught in the church Fathers and throughout church history. Why don’t you believe it? If you believe Peter was head of the church, then why not believe there were successors? If you don’t believe there are successors to the apostles then what authority structure did Christ leave behind if any?

If that's what you meant in your previous post, then it becomes viciously circular. You said that church leaders do have authority because God gave them the power to speak for Him, and now you reveal that what you meant by that is just that they have the God given ability to be infallible. In other words, unless a person accepts papal infallibility, meh, what have you offered them?

No viscous circle at all we have Christ in both Matt 16 and 18 given the apostles the power to bind and loose and that power was considered to be carried into heaven by God. This is an awesome power. Why wouldn't such powers be transferred through succession to today? Goodness knows with mans fallen human nature, we need to be told the truth, we need an authority from God. The OT church had it throughout its history through the chair of Moses, why not continue that through the chair of Peter? It all seems very reasonable and the alternatives seem very unreasonable. You see Protestants disagree on many issues and yet the rest of us are supposed to say all this is from God. The Protestants have no way to resolve the many differences other than to form new denominations. But this is unbiblical. What then did God do to resolve this unresolvable problem. Only the Catholics have the answer which is nothing other than a living magisterium with the Pope as the head.

What say you?

JM

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Johnmartin, beware of questions like "why wouldn't xyz be the case..." Why WOULD they be the case? You just assume that there was an infallible papacy transferred from Peter, and then based on this assumption you take "the power to speak from God" to mean "the power to speak infallibly," and this just results in the circular tail chasing I referred to earlier, since when you asked "why wouldn't someone who speaks from God do so infallibly," all you meant is "why wouldn;t an infallible magisterium speak infallibly?" Well obviously an infallible magisterium would speak infallibly. Nice little circle, but it has zero logical appeal to those who aren't part of the circle already.

[johnmartin]

Johnmartin, beware of questions like "why wouldn't xyz be the case..." Why WOULD they be the case? You just assume that there was an infallible papacy transferred from Peter, and then based on this assumption you take "the power to speak from God" to mean "the power to speak infallibly," and this just results in the circular tail chasing I referred to earlier, since when you asked "why wouldn't someone who speaks from God do so infallibly," all you meant is "why wouldn;t an infallible magisterium speak infallibly?" Well obviously an infallible magisterium would speak infallibly. Nice little circle, but it has zero logical appeal to those who aren't part of the circle already.I've noticed the charge of circularity is made by those who dont want to answer the rather obvious problems with their own position. The atheist do the same with the proofs for God calling them all circular when they are manifestly not. You have not shown any circularity with my arguments but only circularity in the straw man arguments. I've already given some brief reasons why the apostles were infallible from Matt 16 and 18. Do you agree Christ gave the apostles such power? You seem to in a previous post. Then why not have succession in the NT as it was in the OT kingdom of David? The church Fathers believed this, why don’t you?

What is a church anyway? The original article never defines it.

JM

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

OK, now in addition to making circular comments in your first post to which I responded (namely, that if someone is infallible, they are infallible), you ask me why I don't agree with those who accept apostolic succession and papal infallibility. Why should I agree with them? You can point out all you like that the Apostles had a unique office, no argument there.

[Tickle Me Mercury]

Question:
If a Jew were to analyze the early church, circa 35AD, how many items on that list would he be checking off?

Exactly. Perspective is so important in understanding these things.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Wow. Just wow.

[johnmartin]

OK, now in addition to making circular comments in your first post to which I responded (namely, that if someone is infallible, they are infallible), you ask me why I don't agree with those who accept apostolic succession and papal infallibility. Why should I agree with them? You can point out all you like that the Apostles had a unique office, no argument there.Agree with them for the following reasons.


Christ instituted the papacy and the bishops
There is evidence in the NT that these offices were to continue through succession.
The failure of protestantism to resolve its many contradictions shows its not from God.
Hence you must follow the Pope, church Councils and bishops.
JM

[johnmartin]

[snip all false exegesis and non related texts] All your quotes are misunderstood by you and do not in any way show the covenants with the Jews to be everlasting. Judaism officially ended when the temple was destroyed and the OT priesthood was destroyed with it. Since that time there have been attempts at rebuilding the temple, which have failed. Judaism is now nothing more than a form of theistic naturalism, which attempts to give some credence to its religion through its unbiblical and outdated ceremonies.



Its chief failure however is not in any of this but like all other false religions it does not have any teaching magisterium from God as it did through the chair of Moses in the OT. Hence as it doesn't have this there is no way to decided on any conflict of opinion or doctrine within that religion other than to have a best guess from the limited canon of scripture and a rabbi’s interpretation. This leads to doctrinal chaos and religious indifferentism. Hence we see many sects within Judaism as we do in Islam and Protestantism, all of which is not from God.



I've probably offended many by this but it is the truth nonetheless.

JM

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Agree with them for the following reasons.


Christ instituted the papacy and the bishops
There is evidence in the NT that these offices were to continue through succession.
The failure of protestantism to resolve its many contradictions shows its not from God.
Hence you must follow the Pope, church Councils and bishops.
JM1. Is neither more nor less than question begging. 2. is not true, although I'd be interested in any arguments you have, and 3. is not an argument for apostolic succession or papal infallibility.

[johnmartin]

1. Is neither more nor less than question begging. 2. is not true, although I'd be interested in any arguments you have, and 3. is not an argument for apostolic succession or papal infallibility.
All start presenting evidence from the bible and the church Fathers for the Papacy and well move on from there.

The Catholic doctrine of the papacy is biblically-based, and is derived from the evident primacy of St. Peter among the apostles. Like all Christian doctrines, it has undergone development through the centuries, but it hasn't departed from the essential components already existing in the leadership and prerogatives of St. Peter. These were given to him by our Lord Jesus Christ, acknowledged by his contemporaries, and accepted by the early Church. The biblical Petrine data is quite strong and convincing, by virtue of its cumulative weight, especially for those who are not hostile to the notion of the papacy from the outset. This is especially made clear with the assistance of biblical commentaries. The evidence of Holy Scripture (RSV) follows:

1. Matthew 16:18: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the powers of death shall not prevail against it."

The rock (Greek, petra) referred to here is St. Peter himself, not his faith or Jesus Christ. Christ appears here not as the foundation, but as the architect who "builds." The Church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men (see, e.g., 1 Pet 2:5). Today, the overwhelming consensus of the great majority of all biblical scholars and commentators is in favor of the traditional Catholic understanding. Here St. Peter is spoken of as the foundation-stone of the Church, making him head and superior of the family of God (i.e., the seed of the doctrine of the papacy). Moreover, Rock embodies a metaphor applied to him by Christ in a sense analogous to the suffering and despised Messiah (1 Pet 2:4-8; cf. Mt 21:42). Without a solid foundation a house falls. St. Peter is the foundation, but not founder of the Church, administrator, but not Lord of the Church. The Good Shepherd (John 10:11) gives us other shepherds as well (Eph 4:11).

2. Matthew 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . ."

The "power of the keys" has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (cf. Is 9:6; Job 12:14; Rev 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances, and legislative powers. In the Old Testament a steward, or prime minister is a man who is "over a house" (Gen 41:40; 43:19; 44:4; 1 Ki 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Ki 10:5; 15:5; 18:18; Is 22:15,20-21).

3. Matthew 16:19 ". . . whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

"Binding" and "loosing" were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to "forbid" and "permit" with reference to the interpretation of the law, and secondarily to "condemn" or "place under the ban" or "acquit." Thus, St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life, by virtue of revelation and the Spirit's leading (Jn 16:13), and to demand obedience from the
Church. "Binding and loosing" represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23). St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in the singular, making him preeminent.

4. Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the "first" (10:2). Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.

5. Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else. In one (only?) example to the contrary, Galatians 2:9, where he ("Cephas") is listed after James and before John, he is clearly preeminent in the entire context (e.g., 1:18-19; 2:7-8).

6. Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, Rock, solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:18).

7. Likewise, Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2).

8. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his "faith may not fail" (Lk 22:32).

9. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to "strengthen your brethren" (Lk 22:32).

Further reading may be found on Peter here
Protestant commentary on Peter.

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/10/reflections-on-papacy-primacy-of-st.html (http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/10/reflections-on-papacy-primacy-of-st.html)

Church Fathers and Peter

http://www.cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a066.html (http://www.cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a066.html)

Peter was therefore the head of the church with the power to bind and loose whatever he wanted. There we have the papacy and infallibility.
Ok theres a start.
JM

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

JohnMartin, your post might be on a subject that you like to present, but the two issues were actually papal infallibility and apostolic succsession. Your post was about neither.

[technomage]

1. Denial in the true nature of God.

What about claiming actual knowledge when all we're doing is guessing.

It seems to me that so many Christians say "Oh, we understand the Trinity is the real understanidng of God" and forget that the Trinity is only a feeble, man-made doctrine to explain a basic and fundamental mystery of how God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit interact with our lives. Frankly, I find it much less easy to condemn someone who flounders in uncertainty than someone who takes pride in their "certain knowledge."

2. Works-emphasis salvation.

Well, there goes the book of James.

3. The true church.

Rather like many Protestants I know, who cast doubts on whether or not Catholicism or Orthodox churches are actually part of the Body of Christ?

4. Authoritative leadership.

So much for Catholics, Orthodox, and most Calvinists. And Jack Hyles and Dr. Bob Jones, for that matter.

5. Regimented giving requirement.

Well, there go the Lutherans. Or anyone who believes in tithing.

6. Loss of salvation for leaving.

Goodbye, Nazarenes and other Arminianists.

7. Authority beyond the Bible.

And here we say farewell to Paul, who used non-Biblical sources as *gasp* sources for some of his writings.

8. Unique truths never before revealed.

And here we bid farewell to our Lord Jesus Christ, who taught his disciples new things. Little inconsequential things like "But I say to you, bless them that curse you."

Eric, I've no doubt you meant this essay sincerely, but in all honesty you've not written "8 Characteristics of a Counterfeit Church." You've simply written a Bill Gates-style campaign of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, shouting "See, all these other groups over there are counterfeit," while ignoring that the very errors for which you condemn others are present as well within the Body of Christ. No, you may not see real Christians forcing their parishoners to drink poisoned kool-aid, but just about everything else in your essay is selective in the extreme.

If I believed for a moment that you were aware of the fundamental double standard you are engaging in, I would call you a liar--but I don't. I think you honestly and sincerely see the problems in other groups, but fail to see the problems within the Church. And because of that, you are not dishonest ... simply in error.

Please, brother, instead of attacking those outside the faith, why not use your efforts to build up the Church. After all, Jesus did not command us to attack the wolves ... He told us to feed His sheep.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

JohnMartin

To debate the doctrine of papal infallibility and/or apostolic succession in this thread would be to drag it off topic. However, if you want to debate it with me, we could, if you like, debate an issue like papal infallibility (since that was the main issue here, with regard to authority) in the gym in a proper debate setting. That way the topic cannot be changed, and when it's done, it's done. I don't have a lot of time on my hands so it won't be a super quick-fire rapid exchange, but over the course of a few weeks we could hash it out there. If you don't want to, of course, I will not take that as an indication that you can't defend your view - there are time constraints on all of us. We could mak the proposition something like "that the papacy is infallible," or "that the catholic doctrine of papal infallibility is true" or something similar.

Let me know what you think of the idea.

[johnmartin]

JohnMartin, your post might be on a subject that you like to present, but the two issues were actually papal infallibility and apostolic succsession. Your post was about neither.Infallibility is dealt with here





1. Matthew 16:18: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the powers of death shall not prevail against it."

The rock (Greek, petra) referred to here is St. Peter himself, not his faith or Jesus Christ. Christ appears here not as the foundation, but as the architect who "builds." The Church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men (see, e.g., 1 Pet 2:5). Today, the overwhelming consensus of the great majority of all biblical scholars and commentators is in favor of the traditional Catholic understanding. Here St. Peter is spoken of as the foundation-stone of the Church, making him head and superior of the family of God (i.e., the seed of the doctrine of the papacy). Moreover, Rock embodies a metaphor applied to him by Christ in a sense analogous to the suffering and despised Messiah (1 Pet 2:4-8; cf. Mt 21:42). Without a solid foundation a house falls. St. Peter is the foundation, but not founder of the Church, administrator, but not Lord of the Church. The Good Shepherd (John 10:11) gives us other shepherds as well (Eph 4:11).

2. Matthew 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . ."

The "power of the keys" has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (cf. Is 9:6; Job 12:14; Rev 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances, and legislative powers. In the Old Testament a steward, or prime minister is a man who is "over a house" (Gen 41:40; 43:19; 44:4; 1 Ki 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Ki 10:5; 15:5; 18:18; Is 22:15,20-21).

3. Matthew 16:19 ". . . whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

"Binding" and "loosing" were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to "forbid" and "permit" with reference to the interpretation of the law, and secondarily to "condemn" or "place under the ban" or "acquit." Thus, St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life, by virtue of revelation and the Spirit's leading (Jn 16:13), and to demand obedience from the
Church. "Binding and loosing" represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23). St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in the singular, making him preeminent.





Succession and hierachy in the church is discussed below.

We shall examine the marks of the Church with which Protestants (despite many exceptions) largely disagree: its visibility, the hierarchy of bishops, apostolic succession, and related issues such as ordination, the duties of priests, and sectarianism. Most of these questions are concerned ultimately with authority per se. Protestants emphasize biblical authority, and Catholics ecclesiastical and episcopal leadership, and Tradition. But if the Bible points to and encourages submission to the latter, then the two types of authority cannot (biblically) be

opposed.



One of the undeniable aspects of unity and oneness in the Bible is the constant warning (especially in the writings of St. Paul) against (and prohibition of) divisions, schism, and sectarianism, either by command, or by counter-example (Matthew 12:25, 16:18, John 10:16, 17:20-23, Acts 4:32, Romans 13:13, 16:17, 1 Corinthians 1:10-13, 3:3-4, 10:17, 11:18-19, 12:12-27, 14:33, 2 Corinthians 12:20, Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 4:3-6, Philippians 1:27, 2:2-3, 1 Timothy 6:3-5, Titus 3:9-10, James 3:16, 2 Peter 2:1). This is clearly no trifling matter. Our Lord even makes unity a means by which the world might believe that the Father sent the Son (John 17:21,23), and prays that it will be as profound as the unity of the Trinity itself (John 17:21-22). St. Paul makes stirring up division a grounds for virtual exclusion from the Christian community (Romans 16:17), and says that divisions (in effect) divide Christ (1 Corinthians 1:13). This has always been one of the strengths of the Catholic position over against Protestantism, and Protestants are themselves increasingly alarmed over what they consider to be a scandalous concurrence between denominationalism and sectarianism, which all agree is condemned in Scripture.



One of the sincere and seemingly reasonable grounds for forming a new sect is the desire to separate from sinners and sin, which may be infecting the group left. Yet the Bible clearly teaches that the Church (especially in its institutional sense) is comprised of both saints and sinners, good and bad. We see this most indisputably in several parables of Jesus about the kingdom of heaven (that is, the Church), such as the wheat and the weeds (or tares), where Jesus says that they will grow together until the final Judgment, or harvest time (Matthew 13:24-30; cf. Matthew 3:12). He compares the Church to a fishnet which draws good and bad fish, ultimately separated (Matthew 13:47-50), and a marriage banquet, from which one guest was cast out into the outer darkness (Matthew 22:1-14). This parable ends with the famous phrase, "Many are called, but few are chosen," which may be interpreted as the distinction between lukewarm, or dead, or nominal Christians and the actual elect who will be saved in the end. Both are present in the Church, according to Jesus. A similar state of

affairs is seen in the parables of the ten virgins (Matthew 25:1-13) and the talents (Matthew 25:14-30). And Jesus' description of Christians and the Church as a city set on a hill (Matthew 5:14; cf. 5:15-16), is an obvious reference to the visibility of the Church. In no way can this city be regarded as invisible.



Jesus chose Judas as His disciple, even though He knew the future, and he was truly an Apostle (Matthew 10:1,4, Mark 3:14, John 6:70-71, Acts 1:17). Likewise, St. Paul, in addressing elders (Acts 20:17) states that the Holy Spirit Himself has made them bishops (RSV, guardians, Greek, episkopos - Acts 20:28), yet from among these very same men, heretics and schismatics would arise (Acts 20:30). He echoes this thought in the parable-like verse 2 Timothy 2:20 (see also 2:15-19).



Protestants often cite Jesus' analogy of sheep and shepherd (John 10:1-16; cf. 2 Timothy 2:19, 1 John 2:19), who know each other (10:14), as evidence that the Church consists of the elect only. Yet the analogy breaks down when we find that Scripture also applies the term sheep to the unsaved reprobate (Psalm 74:1), the straying (Psalm 119:176), Israel as a nation (Ezekiel 34:2-3,13,23,30), and, indeed, all men (Isaiah 53:6).



Other passages which presuppose a visible, identifiable, "concrete" Church include Matthew 18:15-17, in which believers are exhorted by our Lord to take errant and obstinate brothers to the church, which will then determine the appropriate verdict. It would be contrary to the tenor of the New Testament if this were a reference to a local church alone - even apart from the utterly impractical consequences of such a scenario (where the sinner would simply attend another denomination and move on with his life, as is tragically all too often the case today).



And St. Paul, in 1 Timothy 3:15, describes the "church of the living God" as "the pillar and bulwark of the truth." This statement is similarly almost nonsensical in the context of competing and often contradictory denominations. Where would a sincere, uninformed, unsophisticated religious seeker go to find this certain truth? Only within the sphere of a serious attempt at actual visible oneness of doctrine can this verse attain any pragmatic possibility.



It is also incorrect to regard St. Paul as some kind of spiritual "lone ranger," on his own with no particular ecclesiastical allegiance, since he was commissioned by Jesus Himself as an Apostle. In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf. 9:17). He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18), and fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2,9). He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4), which was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27). Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).



The New Testament refers basically to three types of permanent offices in the Church (Apostles and Prophets were to cease): bishops (episkopos), elders (presbyteros, from which are derived Presbyterian and priest), and deacons (diakonos). Bishops are mentioned in Acts 1:20, 20:28, Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:1-2, Titus 1:7, and 1 Peter 2:25. Presbyteros (usually elder) appears in passages such as Acts 15:2-6, 21:18, Hebrews 11:2, 1 Peter 5:1, and 1 Timothy 5:17. Protestants view these leaders as analogous to current-day pastors, while Catholics regard them as priests. Deacons (often, minister in English translations) are mentioned in the same fashion as Christian elders with similar frequency (for example, 1 Corinthians 3:5, Philippians 1:1, 1 Thessalonians 3:2, 1 Timothy 3:8-13).



As is often the case in theology and practice among the earliest Christians, there is some fluidity and overlapping of these three vocations (for example, compare Acts 20:17 with 20:28; 1 Timothy 3:1-7 with Titus 1:5-9). But this doesn't prove that three offices of ministry did not exist. For instance, St. Paul often referred to himself as a deacon or minister (1 Corinthians 3:5, 4:1, 2 Corinthians 3:6, 6:4, 11:23, Ephesians 3:7, Colossians1:23-25), yet no one would assert that he was merely a deacon, and nothing else. Likewise, St. Peter calls himself a fellow elder (1 Peter 5:1), whereas Jesus calls him the rock upon which He would build His Church, and gave him alone "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 16:18-19). These examples are usually indicative of a healthy humility, according to Christ's injunctions of servanthood (Matthew 23:11-12, Mark 10:43-44).



Upon closer observation, clear distinctions of office appear, and the hierarchical nature of Church government in the New Testament emerges. Bishops are always referred to in the singular, while elders are usually mentioned plurally. The primary controversy among Christians has to do with the nature and functions of both bishops and elders (deacons have largely the same duties among both Protestants and Catholics).



Catholics contend that the elders/presbyters in Scripture carry out all the functions of the Catholic priest:



1) Sent and Commissioned by Jesus (the notion of being called): Mark 6:7, John 15:5, 20:21, Romans 10:15, 2 Corinthians 5:20.



2) Representatives of Jesus: Luke 10:16, John 13:20.



3) Authority to "Bind" and "Loose" (Penance and Absolution): Matthew 18:18 (compare Matthew 16:19).



4) Power to Forgive Sins in Jesus' Name: Luke 24:47, John 20:21-23, 2 Corinthians 2:5-11, James 5:15.



5) Authority to Administer Penance: Acts 5:2-11, 1 Corinthians 5:3-13, 2 Corinthians 5:18, 1 Timothy 1:18-20, Titus 3:10.



6) Power to Conduct the Eucharist: Luke 22:19, Acts 2:42 (compare Luke 24:35, Acts 2:46, 20:7, 1 Corinthians 10:16).



7) Dispense Sacraments: 1 Corinthians 4:1, James 5:13-15.



8) Perform Baptisms: Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38,41.



9) Ordained: Acts 14:23, 1 Timothy 4:14, 5:23.



10) Pastors (Shepherds): Acts 20:17,28, Ephesians 4:11, 1 Peter 5:1-4.



11) Preach and Teach: 1 Timothy 3:1-2, 5:17.



12) Evangelize: Matthew 16:15, 28:19-20, Mark 3:14, Luke 9:2,6, 24:47, Acts 1:8.



13) Heal: Matthew 10:1, Luke 9:1-2,6.



14) Cast Out Demons: Matthew 10:1, Mark 3:15, Luke 9:1.



15) Hear Confessions: Acts 19:18 (compare Matthew 3:6, Mark 1:5, James 5:16, 1 John 1:8-9; presupposed in John 20:23).



16) Celibacy for Those Called to it: Matthew 19:12, 1 Corinthians 7:7-9,20,25-38 (especially 7:35).



17) Enjoy Christ's Perpetual Presence and Assistance in a Special Way: Matthew 28:20.



Protestants - following Luther - cite 1 Peter 2:5,9 (see also Revelation 1:6) in order to prove that all Christians are priests. But this doesn't exclude a specially-ordained, sacramental priesthood, since St. Peter was reflecting the language of Exodus 19:6, where the Jews were described in this fashion. Since the Jews had a separate Levitical priesthood, by analogy 1 Peter 2:9 cannot logically exclude a New Testament ordained priesthood. These texts are concerned with priestly holiness, as opposed to priestly function. The universal sense, for instance, never refers to the Eucharist or sacraments. Every Christian is a priest in terms of offering the sacrifices of prayer (Hebrews 13:15), almsgiving (Hebrews 13:16), and faith in

Jesus (Philippians 2:17).



Bishops (episkopos) possess all the powers, duties, and jurisdiction of priests, with the following important additional responsibilities:



1) Jurisdiction over Priests and Local Churches, and the Power to Ordain Priests: Acts 14:22, 1 Timothy 5:22, 2 Timothy 1:6, Titus 1:5.



2) Special Responsibility to Defend the Faith: Acts 20:28-31, 2 Timothy 4:1-5, Titus 1:9-10, 2 Peter 3:15-16.



3) Power to Rebuke False Doctrine and Excommunicate: Acts 8:14-24, 1 Corinthians 16:22, 1 Timothy 5:20, 2 Timothy 4:2, Titus 1:10-11.



4) Power to Bestow Confirmation (the Receiving of the Indwelling Holy Spirit): Acts 8:14-17, 19:5-6.



5) Management of Church Finances: 1 Timothy 3:3-4, 1 Peter 5:2.



In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), episkopos is used for overseer in various senses, for example: officers (Judges 9:28, Isaiah 60:17), supervisors of funds (2 Chronicles 34:12,17), overseers of priests and Levites (Nehemiah 11:9, 2 Kings 11:18), and of temple and tabernacle functions (Numbers 4:16). God is called episkopos at Job 20:29, referring to His role as Judge, and Christ is an episkopos in 1 Peter 2:25 (RSV: "Shepherd and Guardian of your souls").



The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-29) bears witness to a definite hierarchical, episcopal structure of government in the early Church. St. Peter, the chief elder (the office of pope) of the entire Church (1 Peter 5:1; cf. John 21:15-17), presided and issued the authoritative pronouncement (15:7-11). Then James, bishop of Jerusalem (kind of like the host-mayor of a conference) gives a concurring (Acts 15:14), concluding statement (15:13-29). That James was the sole, "monarchical" bishop of Jerusalem is fairly apparent from Scripture (Acts 12:17, 15:13,19, 21:18, Galatians 1:19, 2:12). This fact is also attested by the first Christian historian, Eusebius (History of the Church, 7:19).



Much historical and patristic evidence also exists for the bishopric of St. Peter at Rome. No one disputes the fact that St. Clement (d.c.101) was the sole bishop of Rome a little later, or that St. Ignatius (d.c.110) was the bishop at Antioch, starting around 69 A.D. Thus, the "monarchical" bishop is both a biblical concept and an unarguable fact of the early Church. By the time we get to the mid-second century, virtually all historians hold that single bishops led each Christian community. This was to be the case in all Christendom, east and west, until Luther transferred this power to the secular princes in the 16th century, and the Anabaptist tradition eschewed ecclesiastical office either altogether or in large part. Today many denominations have no bishops whatsoever.



One may concede all the foregoing as true, yet deny apostolic succession, whereby these offices are passed down, or handed down, through the generations and centuries, much like Sacred Tradition. But this belief of the Catholic Church (along with Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism) is also grounded in Scripture:



St. Paul teaches us (Ephesians 2:20) that the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles, whom Christ Himself chose (John 6:70, Acts 1:2,13; cf. Matthew 16:18). In Mark 6:30 the twelve original disciples of Jesus are called apostles, and Matthew 10:1-5 and Revelation 21:14 speak of the twelve apostles. After Judas defected, the remaining eleven Apostles appointed his successor, Matthias (Acts 1:20-26). Since Judas is called a bishop (episkopos) in this passage (1:20), then by logical extension all the Apostles can be considered bishops (albeit of an extraordinary sort).



If the Apostles are bishops, and one of them was replaced by another, after the death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ, then we have an explicit example of apostolic succession in the Bible, taking place before 35 A.D. In like fashion, St. Paul appears to be passing on his office to Timothy (2 Timothy 4:1-6), shortly before his death, around 65 A.D. This succession shows an authoritative equivalency between Apostles and bishops, who are the successors of the Apostles. As a corollary, we are also informed in Scripture that the Church itself is perpetual, infallible, and indefectible (Matthew 16:18, John 14:26, 16:18). Why should the early Church be set up in one form and the later Church in another?



All of this biblical data is harmonious with the ecclesiological views of the Catholic Church. There has been some development over the centuries, but in all essentials, the biblical Church and clergy and the Catholic Church and clergy are one and the same.



Any comment?

JM

[johnmartin]

JohnMartin

To debate the doctrine of papal infallibility and/or apostolic succession in this thread would be to drag it off topic. However, if you want to debate it with me, we could, if you like, debate an issue like papal infallibility (since that was the main issue here, with regard to authority) in the gym in a proper debate setting. That way the topic cannot be changed, and when it's done, it's done. I don't have a lot of time on my hands so it won't be a super quick-fire rapid exchange, but over the course of a few weeks we could hash it out there. If you don't want to, of course, I will not take that as an indication that you can't defend your view - there are time constraints on all of us. We could mak the proposition something like "that the papacy is infallible," or "that the catholic doctrine of papal infallibility is true" or something similar.

Let me know what you think of the idea.Ok set it up in the BB court and I'll respond. I too have time restraints with exams and assignments coming up but I'm keen to see how it goes. It will probably last for a while.
JM

[johnmartin]

What about claiming actual knowledge when all we're doing is guessing.

It seems to me that so many Christians say "Oh, we understand the Trinity is the real understanidng of God" and forget that the Trinity is only a feeble, man-made doctrine to explain a basic and fundamental mystery of how God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit interact with our lives. Frankly, I find it much less easy to condemn someone who flounders in uncertainty than someone who takes pride in their "certain knowledge."



Well, there goes the book of James.



Rather like many Protestants I know, who cast doubts on whether or not Catholicism or Orthodox churches are actually part of the Body of Christ?



So much for Catholics, Orthodox, and most Calvinists. And Jack Hyles and Dr. Bob Jones, for that matter.



Well, there go the Lutherans. Or anyone who believes in tithing.



Goodbye, Nazarenes and other Arminianists.



And here we say farewell to Paul, who used non-Biblical sources as *gasp* sources for some of his writings.



And here we bid farewell to our Lord Jesus Christ, who taught his disciples new things. Little inconsequential things like "But I say to you, bless them that curse you."

Eric, I've no doubt you meant this essay sincerely, but in all honesty you've not written "8 Characteristics of a Counterfeit Church." You've simply written a Bill Gates-style campaign of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, shouting "See, all these other groups over there are counterfeit," while ignoring that the very errors for which you condemn others are present as well within the Body of Christ. No, you may not see real Christians forcing their parishoners to drink poisoned kool-aid, but just about everything else in your essay is selective in the extreme.

If I believed for a moment that you were aware of the fundamental double standard you are engaging in, I would call you a liar--but I don't. I think you honestly and sincerely see the problems in other groups, but fail to see the problems within the Church. And because of that, you are not dishonest ... simply in error.

Please, brother, instead of attacking those outside the faith, why not use your efforts to build up the Church. After all, Jesus did not command us to attack the wolves ... He told us to feed His sheep.Whats the church? Who detemines this?
JM

[maudman]

23. Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25. Behold, I have told you before.
26. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

Many times Christians look at certain prophetic messages and because our eschatology usually condenses things into small window of fulfillment we start trying to look at newly established denominations of today and we start pointing fingers. But this message of Christ was something that happens in the future and it was starting while Paul was still alive. It would continue to happen in the Church because they were leaving the Church. Who left the Church that Christ was building. Did Israel ever quit being Israel because of Sin? God forbid, If sin wasn’t concurred by the cross then were all condemned.

Now being a catholic, I could look at these verses of scripture and say this is Protestantism to the core.

It is the effect social reform had on Christians who walked away from the church.

Although the truths of the bible are important and were to the church, the spirit of unity of the churched trumped all. Gods grace through faith was sufficient for Growth. The church was and is composed of many different peoples from different backgrounds. Christ crucified is the foundation of faith. Each man had to grow within himself. The church couldn’t change just because of a few people’s beliefs or revelations of truth. The body as it was and is, is a temple being built by Christ’s.

This is why you have so many protestant denominations today. Too many claiming special revelation and leave the building they are in to build another to accommodate their newly found revelation.

It amazes me that a God that creates a universe so big we can’t imagine how to encompass it? This God couldn’t oversee his little ole Church.

I was speaking to a brother in Christ yesterday after my niece was being confirmed. He was once Pentecostal, and years ago he became a confirmed catholic and he said I was tired of being beat up with no hope. The constant reminder of my sins of the past, He did find forgiveness in an institution that constantly railed about sin.

We teach what sin is and the consequences it can have, it’s not the Gospel. The Gospel is the hope and Joy found in Christ. We can sin everyday and not know it! The continual sacrifice of Christ is the hope of our faith. It’s Not the customs or rituals of the Church itself because it accommodates so many different peoples. As a catholic I know there are things that may not be how I think things should be. But I First and Foremost respect the authority of the Church because it is Christ’s. I reform myself not the church. And I have found few Catholics that don’t respect that were I live.


Peace all

[Jezz]

Whats the church? Who detemines this?
The Church does.

[HerodionRomulus]

All these angelic pinheaded dances are great debate issues but one characteristic was not noted even though it is crucial.

A church is counterfeit or just a shell if it does not do the one crucial thing mandated by Christ: love one another thru acts of love. You know: tend the sick, visit the prisoners, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, support the widows and orphans, defend the oppressed, seek to end poverty, support the helpess, hopeless and hapless.
Mt 23:31ff
I Jn 3:23
jas ch 2
etc etc

There are plenty of churches that have rigorous and mostly correct doctrine, but that is all they have and without active love, they are worthless.

[HerodionRomulus]

Not to go too far off track, but Peter did not preside over the Council of Jerusalem. He gave his view and testimony but James presided, he was the last to speak (indicating rank) and James alone gave the ruling and stated how to enforce it.
Therefore James outranked Peter.

[johnmartin]

Not to go too far off track, but Peter did not preside over the Council of Jerusalem. He gave his view and testimony but James presided, he was the last to speak (indicating rank) and James alone gave the ruling and stated how to enforce it.
Therefore James outranked Peter.No Peter and James both had authority. Peter was head of the church and made the binding doctrinal decision. James, as Bishop of Jerusalem made the binding decision concerning the implementation of the decision by Peter. James decision is based upon and assumes Peters authority. Peter is therefore using the authority Christ gave him to bind and loose with the keys given him.
JM

[johnmartin]

The Church does.Good but which one? Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and on and on it goes. They all disagree on doctrine. Which is then the true church?
JM

[BurningBush--U]

Very dogmatic indeed.

Every word was based on YOUR views of christianity, not the Bibles.

Try looking in the scriptures first. Start in the OT, you know the 3/4 of the bible modern church goers toss out... yeah, there, and re-think your whole position.

[Joe Gofish]

This point is self-contradictory. The entire article is about casting doubt and suspicion on other churches and denominations - those churches which do not fit the criteria on the list.

This point is also contradicted in turn by point 8:


The idea that there is no single church that is the Church (which is implicit in point 3) is a unique truth that was never before revealed before the Reformation.

Indeed, many of the points on this list are contradicted by point 8. The above was the one that stuck out at me the most.
BAD NEWS , B4 the reformation there was NO denominations,we only had christians.

[HerodionRomulus]

BAD NEWS , B4 the reformation there was NO denominations,we only had christians.

Bad news!
There were Waldensians, Copts, Ethiopian Orthodox, Nestorians, Eastern (Greek/Russian/etc) Orthodox, Armenian, Georgian, Hussites, Cathari (until they were exterminated by the RCC) and more.

And some groups such as the Orthodox and Nestorians had millions of adherents and were geographically widespread.

[Rushing Jaws]

I gotta say, Trout, I don't think the RCC, the EOC, or the Anglican Church would pass this test. It seems as if the author is saying "Attend a mainline protestant Church or else!"## ISTM that no Church would pass his tests :lol:

1. Denial in the true nature of God.
## Is it unfair to wonder about someone's competence if they can't express themselves in standard English - or is it acceptable US English usage to use "in" for "of" ? It may not seem very important to express one's self in that way, but poor English is often an indication of muddled thinking.
4. Authoritative leadership. A group where the leader(s) has an authoritative role, even to the extent that they say they speak for God, is another cause for concern.
## So much for Moses then - and wasn't there some some Jewish fellow crucified under Pontius Pilate who behaved in the same way ? Whoops - there go the claims of Jesus :) This test does not do justice to the NT doctrine of the ministry, which is one with authority to teach and govern; just ask a Calvinist. Pastors do have teaching authority, necessarily so - if they did not, it would be a great impertinence of them to dare to say that they preach the truth about Christ; they would be preaching mere opinions; and why should a man's opinion that Jesus is Lord, or that God does not approve of creeds or catechisms, be of any more interest than his opinions about the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, or football ?

For that matter - this fourth test is a contradiction of the essayist's position ##
6. Loss of salvation for leaving. Many counterfeit Christian churches insist that if a member decides to leave the group, for whatever reason, they jeopardize their salvation before God.
## So much for Hebrews 6 and 10 - which take an extremely dim view of apostasy ##
8. Unique truths never before revealed.
## This is tricky, because the Bible would have been disqualified by this objection: it took hundreds of years to produce. Moses does not refer to baptism for the remission of sins, nor do the Psalms teach salvation through the Blood of Christ, nor does Nehemiah mention justification by faith. This test would leave us Jews, and Jews without the Tanakh at that.

The weakness in all this is that the test is by the Bible as we have it now - this way of thinking is unhistorical, because it seems to take for granted that the Bible was available as a test of churches for the last 3000 years or so. ##