A question for non-Catholics

[zionist06]

Since non-Catholics believed that the Catholic Church went "pagan" in the 3rd and 4th century. What was the name of the "true" church during this same time? And what was the name of the leaders of this "true" church? y

[pistache]

I don't identify myself with the name of a "church". I identify myself with the name of Jesus Christ.

[Chris]

I don't identify myself with the name of a "church". I identify myself with the name of Jesus Christ.

Good answer!!

The RCC wants folks to think they are the only true church in the world and they believe if you are not part of it then you are not saved. We don't need the spiritual bondage of Rome. Jesus died for us so we could be free, not held in spiritual bondage by a works based salvation plan. People need to come out of Rome, lest they take her plagues later on.

[Ort]

Good answer!!

The RCC wants folks to think they are the only true church in the world and they believe if you are not part of it then you are not saved. We don't need the spiritual bondage of Rome. Jesus died for us so we could be free, not held in spiritual bondage by a works based salvation plan. People need to come out of Rome, lest they take her plagues later on.

[mattfivefour]

zionist, I can only speak for myself, but I do not desire to win an argument with you. Because if I win, what have I won? I would rather that the Lord God win you.

I know you think we who are not RC are wrong. But we have come to our beliefs from scripture. And scripture alone. The amazing power of the Holy Spirit working in us illiuminated His Word and led each of us separately to His truth. some of us may have veered off into error, listening to man and accepting what he says. but we have all recovered ourselves thanks to the grace and the mercy of our Father.

You have accepted the teaching of the church of Rome on many issues. But on what are those teachings based. And please do not give me a generic "On the Bible" or a generic "On Jesus Christ". You need to be specific. Chapter and verse. The Bible says of itself that ALL of it is "is inspired by God [literally 'God-breathed'] and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. —2 Timothy 3:16-17

So, if you can show me from God's Word (not from someone else's writings) where we are to accept the traditions of man rather than what is written in scripture, if you can show me from God's Word (again not from someone else's writings) where the rites of the Roman Catholic church are ordained, then we can have a fruitful discussion.

Otherwise, all I am hearing is error ... no matter how sincerely it is put forth.

.

[Ort]

"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on HUMAN TRADITION and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." Colossians 2:8

[RickyV]

Since non-Catholics believed that the Catholic Church went "pagan" in the 3rd and 4th century. What was the name of the "true" church during this same time? And what was the name of the leaders of this "true" church? y

I for one do not think the RCC "went" pagan, The RCC was a pagan religion know as the Roman Empire that then disguised it paganism with a Christian wrapper. When Constantine ordered Christianity as the state religion in 312 the Roman Catholic Church was born out of the pagan worship that proceeded it.

Prior to this, the true church, as it has been every since the crucifixion and resurrection of Our Lord and Savior existed outside of "religion" inside and outside of many "church" buildings.

Every "religion" that has man made dogma and doctrine have problems and paganistic tendencies inside of them. The reason why the focus is on the RCC is because of the overwhelming amount that exists within it's practices. Not only that, but that the secular world looks upon Catholicism as Christianity and the RCC props itself up as the one true church that is infallible.

Any Christian who approaches our God with an open mind and a humble heart, and seeks only Truth and a closer relationship and understanding of Jesus Christ, who puts the RCC up against the Word of God will walk away with a bitter taste for the RCC. 1700 years of subtle deception and deceit within its ranks should fire you up as a Christian.

I have shied away from the RCC issue, as most Christians have, because I didn't want to rock the boat or I am not supposed to Judge. But the time for silence needs to be ended......we are living in a time where the Truth needs to be spoken, I love you whether you are Catholic or not......I have some major objections towards the leadership and the false prophets and teachers that speak against our Lord and Savior and the deception being carried out by the hierarchy of the RCC. This is not a protestant vs Catholicism issue this is a Truth vs. Deception issue.

"If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things." -Rene Descartes

Start from scratch with the one Truth "Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior" then allow Him to teach you and guide you, let no man deceive you. Let no tradition of man put a stumbling block in front of you, approach God with a hungry and a thirst for Him and His Truth....let only God discern for you.


A good place to start is this article "Why I left the Catholic Church"

[readytogo]

Since non-Catholics believed that the Catholic Church went "pagan" in the 3rd and 4th century. What was the name of the "true" church during this same time? And what was the name of the leaders of this "true" church? y

I'm going to put me in here. Although, I was raised Catholic, I am not a Catholic now. I know what the Catholic Church taught, and what is magnified by "rabid anti-Catholics" as Catholic teaching. And, just so everyone on the board knows, I see that there are "rabid Catholics" as well.

Being a non-Catholic, I don't believe that the Catholic Church "went pagan" in the 3rd and 4th century. It was started in the 3rd and 4th century by Constantine. I think that his "conversion" was real and that he probably thought that he was doing Christ and Christians "a favor" by making it the "official church". The martyrdom of Christians fell dramatically after that. But as anything else concerning Christ, the enemy hated it as it did the followers of the enemy. They "infiltrated" the church. THEY are the ones that brought in the pagan influences that so many non-Catholics are quick to point out. (Question: If the Catholic Church were a completely pagan entity, why would the enemy even bother?) Then, as today, there were men who saw Christianity as a means to achieve what they wanted. People today forget that without the spread of the Catholic Church and the "Holy Roman Empire" that Christianity would not have spread from the Middle East to Europe. Although, people are quick to point out that the "masses" did not have the Bible, without the Catholic Church, there would have been no Bible at all in much of Europe, they would never have heard the name of Christ, etc. And while all of Europe (where most of our ancestors here came from) languished in the Dark Ages, Catholic monks dutifully made copies of the Bible that could continue to be used to teach the people. Even if they couldn't read the word of God--they heard the word of God. And He promises that His word will not come back void. There were (and are) people who can tell the difference between God's teachings and man's teaching--through the power of the Holy Spirit. There were (and still are) people being saved as Catholics. But I don't believe that it's the "true church".

The "true church" is not a denomination. The "true church" is not Catholic, Baptist, Anglican, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, or any other "church" that you can name. The "true church" is made up of people who believe that Christ is truly who He said He is--God incarnate, the Messiah, the Lamb of God who came to save a world that was incapable of saving itself! Members of the "true church" realized that they were (and are) sinners in need of a savior and seek Him. They realize that there is NOTHING that they can do, no laws that they can follow, no rites that they can perform to be saved. They have to come to terms with the fact that they are sinners, and that it's only by the grace of God that they will be saved, and that there is no other name on the earth or in heaven by which they can be saved other than Jesus Christ. (Anything else is trying to earn "brownie points" with God and, in the end, brownie points aren't worth diddly-squat.) And, through the centuries, people have been saved not because of the churches they attend, but in spite of the churches that they attend. Because the sad fact is that no matter which "church" one attends, it's a safe bet that it's humans that attend that church. And, whether they admit it or not, humans always add something to the gospel. To be saved, you must believe that Christ died for your sins AND...you must do this or that, you must not do this or that, you must attend this church and not that church, etc.

Sadly, it's because of the division, the fighting, and the name-calling between the denominations that the non-Christians shake their heads and point their fingers. Note: I'm NOT advocating ecumenism! This is not a call for all religions to join hands and sing "We Are the World"! There are certain truths that cannot be compromised!!! And "true believers" know this.

I'm going to end this post because I'm starting to ramble and I'm going to end up getting in trouble. BTW, zionist06, if you are not a "rabid Catholic" here to sow dissension, I welcome you to the forum.y

[open door]

I'm going to put me in here. Although, I was raised Catholic, I am not a Catholic now. I know what the Catholic Church taught, and what is magnified by "rabid anti-Catholics" as Catholic teaching. And, just so everyone on the board knows, I see that there are "rabid Catholics" as well.

Being a non-Catholic, I don't believe that the Catholic Church "went pagan" in the 3rd and 4th century. It was started in the 3rd and 4th century by Constantine. I think that his "conversion" was real and that he probably thought that he was doing Christ and Christians "a favor" by making it the "official church". The martyrdom of Christians fell dramatically after that. But as anything else concerning Christ, the enemy hated it as it did the followers of the enemy. They "infiltrated" the church. THEY are the ones that brought in the pagan influences that so many non-Catholics are quick to point out. (Question: If the Catholic Church were a completely pagan entity, why would the enemy even bother?) Then, as today, there were men who saw Christianity as a means to achieve what they wanted. People today forget that without the spread of the Catholic Church and the "Holy Roman Empire" that Christianity would not have spread from the Middle East to Europe. Although, people are quick to point out that the "masses" did not have the Bible, without the Catholic Church, there would have been no Bible at all in much of Europe, they would never have heard the name of Christ, etc. And while all of Europe (where most of our ancestors here came from) languished in the Dark Ages, Catholic monks dutifully made copies of the Bible that could continue to be used to teach the people. Even if they couldn't read the word of God--they heard the word of God. And He promises that His word will not come back void. There were (and are) people who can tell the difference between God's teachings and man's teaching--through the power of the Holy Spirit. There were (and still are) people being saved as Catholics. But I don't believe that it's the "true church".

The "true church" is not a denomination. The "true church" is not Catholic, Baptist, Anglican, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, or any other "church" that you can name. The "true church" is made up of people who believe that Christ is truly who He said He is--God incarnate, the Messiah, the Lamb of God who came to save a world that was incapable of saving itself! Members of the "true church" realized that they were (and are) sinners in need of a savior and seek Him. They realize that there is NOTHING that they can do, no laws that they can follow, no rites that they can perform to be saved. They have to come to terms with the fact that they are sinners, and that it's only by the grace of God that they will be saved, and that there is no other name on the earth or in heaven by which they can be saved other than Jesus Christ. (Anything else is trying to earn "brownie points" with God and, in the end, brownie points aren't worth diddly-squat.) And, through the centuries, people have been saved not because of the churches they attend, but in spite of the churches that they attend. Because the sad fact is that no matter which "church" one attends, it's a safe bet that it's humans that attend that church. And, whether they admit it or not, humans always add something to the gospel. To be saved, you must believe that Christ died for your sins AND...you must do this or that, you must not do this or that, you must attend this church and not that church, etc.

Sadly, it's because of the division, the fighting, and the name-calling between the denominations that the non-Christians shake their heads and point their fingers. Note: I'm NOT advocating ecumenism! This is not a call for all religions to join hands and sing "We Are the World"! There are certain truths that cannot be compromised!!! And "true believers" know this.

I'm going to end this post because I'm starting to ramble and I'm going to end up getting in trouble. BTW, zionist06, if you are not a "rabid Catholic" here to sow dissension, I welcome you to the forum.y

readytogo, i don't know a lot about catholicism, but i applaud you in this response. in fact, i'm copying it - i have a son-in-law who is catholic. again, thank you, and may God bless you

[mattfivefour]

I'm going to put me in here. Although, I was raised Catholic, I am not a Catholic now. I know what the Catholic Church taught, and what is magnified by "rabid anti-Catholics" as Catholic teaching. And, just so everyone on the board knows, I see that there are "rabid Catholics" as well.

Being a non-Catholic, I don't believe that the Catholic Church "went pagan" in the 3rd and 4th century. It was started in the 3rd and 4th century by Constantine. I think that his "conversion" was real and that he probably thought that he was doing Christ and Christians "a favor" by making it the "official church". The martyrdom of Christians fell dramatically after that. But as anything else concerning Christ, the enemy hated it as it did the followers of the enemy. They "infiltrated" the church. THEY are the ones that brought in the pagan influences that so many non-Catholics are quick to point out. (Question: If the Catholic Church were a completely pagan entity, why would the enemy even bother?) Then, as today, there were men who saw Christianity as a means to achieve what they wanted. People today forget that without the spread of the Catholic Church and the "Holy Roman Empire" that Christianity would not have spread from the Middle East to Europe. Although, people are quick to point out that the "masses" did not have the Bible, without the Catholic Church, there would have been no Bible at all in much of Europe, they would never have heard the name of Christ, etc. And while all of Europe (where most of our ancestors here came from) languished in the Dark Ages, Catholic monks dutifully made copies of the Bible that could continue to be used to teach the people. Even if they couldn't read the word of God--they heard the word of God. And He promises that His word will not come back void. There were (and are) people who can tell the difference between God's teachings and man's teaching--through the power of the Holy Spirit. There were (and still are) people being saved as Catholics. But I don't believe that it's the "true church".

The "true church" is not a denomination. The "true church" is not Catholic, Baptist, Anglican, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, or any other "church" that you can name. The "true church" is made up of people who believe that Christ is truly who He said He is--God incarnate, the Messiah, the Lamb of God who came to save a world that was incapable of saving itself! Members of the "true church" realized that they were (and are) sinners in need of a savior and seek Him. They realize that there is NOTHING that they can do, no laws that they can follow, no rites that they can perform to be saved. They have to come to terms with the fact that they are sinners, and that it's only by the grace of God that they will be saved, and that there is no other name on the earth or in heaven by which they can be saved other than Jesus Christ. (Anything else is trying to earn "brownie points" with God and, in the end, brownie points aren't worth diddly-squat.) And, through the centuries, people have been saved not because of the churches they attend, but in spite of the churches that they attend. Because the sad fact is that no matter which "church" one attends, it's a safe bet that it's humans that attend that church. And, whether they admit it or not, humans always add something to the gospel. To be saved, you must believe that Christ died for your sins AND...you must do this or that, you must not do this or that, you must attend this church and not that church, etc.

Sadly, it's because of the division, the fighting, and the name-calling between the denominations that the non-Christians shake their heads and point their fingers. Note: I'm NOT advocating ecumenism! This is not a call for all religions to join hands and sing "We Are the World"! There are certain truths that cannot be compromised!!! And "true believers" know this.

I'm going to end this post because I'm starting to ramble and I'm going to end up getting in trouble. BTW, zionist06, if you are not a "rabid Catholic" here to sow dissension, I welcome you to the forum.y

You know, rtg, while there are a few historical assumptions you make that I might disagree with, they are not important in the grand scheme of things. I wholeheartedly shout AMEN to almost everything you have written ... especially the two paragraphs that begin with the words "the 'true church' is not a denomination" and which I endorse in its entirety. Good points, well presented. Good job.

I also agree with the final statement in your final paragraph. (I do not agree with the first statement you make in this paragraph because I do not think you were rambling and I do not think you were about to get yourself in trouble. You were making perfect sense.) But the point you made that I agree with is the welcoming of zionist06. Those who come here to enjoy the fruit of communion ... and not sow the seeds of dissension ... are ALWAYS welcome among true believers.

(BTW isn't it wonderful to see how many new members are joining this forum day after day, recently? )

.

[pistache]

(BTW isn't it wonderful to see how many new members are joining this forum day after day, recently? )

:iagree it's awesome to see!

And thanks, rtg, for a really insightful post! 2:

[BuzzardHut]

Here is an orthodox view, they claim to be first as well

We do know the practices in Acts had nothing to do with the rituals and traditions of the liturgical churches

[BuzzardHut]

Since non-Catholics believed that the Catholic Church went "pagan" in the 3rd and 4th century. What was the name of the "true" church during this same time? And what was the name of the leaders of this "true" church? y

Peter & Paul of the scriptures were two early church leaders.
But not the traditional Saint Peter & Saint Paul, those are fictional characters.

[light4mypath]

I don't identify myself with the name of a "church". I identify myself with the name of Jesus Christ.

Exactly! Also, when some one asks me if I am a "Christian", I tell them I am a believer and follower in Jesus Christ, and as a believer, I am part of the church---that we, as believers, make up the church.......

there will be no divisions (religions) in heaven ... We are one body, and one church now and will continue to be so!

[god_chick3]

there will be no divisions (religions) in heaven ... We are one body, and one church now and will continue to be so!

:iagree

[barukh1]

10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. 12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” 13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. 16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. 1 Cor

I see this as a great example of how we need to stop the discension between us and let go of all the Im Catholic, Baptist, Church or God or anything else that stands in the way of what we are truly created for...to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ...that is ALL that matters...doesnt matter if it was pagan in the 3rd, 4th or 21st century..just plain doesnt matter....there is a whole world out there dying ...going to hell by the bazillions every day and all the time spent on defending the "church" is pointless. Chasing the wind ..all is vanity.

[mattfivefour]

10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. 12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” 13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. 16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. 1 Cor

I see this as a great example of how we need to stop the discension between us and let go of all the Im Catholic, Baptist, Church or God or anything else that stands in the way of what we are truly created for...to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ...that is ALL that matters...doesnt matter if it was pagan in the 3rd, 4th or 21st century..just plain doesnt matter....there is a whole world out there dying ...going to hell by the bazillions every day and all the time spent on defending the "church" is pointless. Chasing the wind ..all is vanity.

I would agree with you if we were talking—as was the Corinthian church apparently—about who was the best teacher, or the greatest apostle, or the one closest to Christ. The divisions in the Corinthian church were the result of members of specific groups gathered around certain teachers claiming that because of either talent or position their leader was superior to all the others and therefore they were better than other Christians.

Now if some of us were saying "I follow John MacArthur and therefore I am closer to God than you or know more than you" and others were saying "I follow Charles Stanley" while others were pushing Woodrow Kroll or Chuck Smith, I would say you are right. But that is not what the discussion is here. And nobody is saying Missionary Baptists are wrong or Southern Baptists or Presbyterians or Anglicans or Pentecostals or whatever. Nor are they saying that one is better than the other.

The only point that separates us here is truth from error. Fundamental truth from fundamental error.

Readytogo was absolutely correct in writing: "The "true church" is not a denomination. The "true church" is not Catholic, Baptist, Anglican, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, or any other "church" that you can name. The "true church" is made up of people who believe that Christ is truly who He said He is--God incarnate, the Messiah, the Lamb of God who came to save a world that was incapable of saving itself! Members of the "true church" realized that they were (and are) sinners in need of a savior and seek Him. They realize that there is NOTHING that they can do, no laws that they can follow, no rites that they can perform to be saved. They have to come to terms with the fact that they are sinners, and that it's only by the grace of God that they will be saved, and that there is no other name on the earth or in heaven by which they can be saved other than Jesus Christ.'

And because that is true, we DO have to differentiate here when someone argues for a NON-scriptural religious organization. The specific topic here has been the Roman Catholic Church. And by the testimony of scripture, the RCC is not Christian. Oh it talks about Jesus, and it has lots of impressive religious rituals and sacraments, but none of that has anything to do with the true gospel. RCC teaches a gospel of "Jesus plus works and rituals". And to add anything to the finished work of our Lord and Savior is openly denying Him and the all-sufficiency of His sacrifice. In fact it is preaching another Jesus. And Paul told us in Galatians to reject anyone—even an angel—who preaches another gospel.

And that holds true for any organization regardless of what name it has over the door, including evangelical churches that are following the Purpose Driven or Emergent church doctrines as well.

So while I agree with you that we need to stop arguing among ourselves (because—as rtg said—the true church is not a denomination), I can only agree insofar as the arguing is in relation to a so-called "party spirit". You know-- thinking that our group is better than the next one, just because it's ours or we think our preacher/teacher/evangelist is extra special.

But that is not what we are doing here. We are looking at the Word of God and judging what is preached against what the Word says. And that same Word commands that we are not to stand silently by and accept error preached as truth. When Christ and Paul called on us for unity, they meant unity in the faith not unity despite the faith. And Paul and the beloved apostle John each made that very clear in their epistles when they criticized erroneous teachings and pointed out by name those who were teaching false doctrine.

Yours in Christ.

.

[RickyV]

My thoughts exactly Matt, very well said, I couldn't agree with you more.

Also I would like to add that on this type of forum, among like minded Christians, is exactly where discussion like this have to happen. I would not go out in the world and talk to a non believer about some of these topics the way I talk about them here, amoung fellow Christians, because it would only cause confusion. But we as Christians need a place to fellowship and discuss important issues like this in order to be a better witness. We grow and learn from each others experience. I also believe that nobody here is a "hater" and most here have an open mind to take what is offered up and then bring it to the Lord and allow discernment to guide them.

[eucharist04]

I don't identify myself with the name of a "church". I identify myself with the name of Jesus Christ.

Jesus started the church. To say you do not identify with a church is to say you are in rebellion against God's set authority.

[mattfivefour]

Jesus started the church. To say you do not identify with a church is to say you are in rebellion against God's set authority.

The problem is you do not understand what the "church" is. The Bible makes it clear-- the church—εκκλησια (ek-lay-SEE-a) in Greek, which means the "called out"—is not an organization. It is the invisible body of true believers. It is made up of ALL who have accepted God's judgment that they are sinners and have accepted as FULL propitiation for their sin the all-sufficient sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross ... by faith and faith alone.