|
(Note: All bible passages are quoted from the New International Version)Baptists, lutherans, episcopals, calvinists, presbyterians, catholics, assemblies of God, disciples of Christ, etc...Which one is the true faith? Do you REALLY know if the doctrines you follow can be supported by the bible? How can you know that YOUR interpretation of the Bible is correct? Why are there thousands of different denominations, just in the U.S, and every day the number is increasing? A man called Charles Russell, found in the Bible that there was no hell. He was an adventist, but he split and founded the Jehovah's Witnesses. |
Televangelists are spreading many errors (like the Toronto 'Blessing') about Jesus, and they condemn and mock those who split from their local communities.
What is happening to the Church? Why?
|
But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ
foretold. They said to you, 'In the last times there will be scoffers who
will follow their own ungodly desires.' These are the men who divide you,
who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.
(Jude, 17-19) If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain. (1Tim 6:3-5) I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? (1 Cor 1:10-13) (That sounds, sadly, very familiar... 'I am baptist', 'I am calvinist', 'I am catholic', 'I am christian'. Is Jesus Christ divided?) |
We know that not ALL denominations can be true (otherwise they would be ONE, not 28,000) ... but should we go and make a new one? We would be founding a NEW church. What really happened is that the Church that Jesus founded became divided. At first, Roman Catholics against the Orthodox; then came Lutherans, Calvinists, Swigilists, Baptists... then Henry VIII founded Anglicanism (and then adopted some of Luther's ideas)... the rest is history. What was 1 church became... thousands? of different denominations. Now, if these churches were compatible, they would join and become one Church. Why can't they? Simple. They are not.
But nothing can stop Jesus from spreading love between His sheep. That's why He brougth us ecumenism. Ecumenism is the work of all the open-hearted christians to promote a true unity between the different churches; with an open mind, not to perversion, but to find out which one is the TRUE doctrine. Instead of bible-fighting, people working for ecumenism do their best to avoid endless scriptural discussions between christians. They first talk about God's love, pray, and try to understand the others' point of view.
Allow me to quote again the Bible (which is God's word):
| Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit-- just as you were called to one hope when you were called-- one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.(Eph 4:3-6) |
How will we do that?
Well, here's the deal:
When we go arguing about a certain doctrine, let's say... "Is Jesus God?" we can ask many people... some of them don't know. Some say Yes, some say "no". All of them have certain opinions, and feelings about their beliefs. Can they all be right? Letme show you the following image of Jesus:
See, for every LITTLE mistake in interpreting the Bible, Jesus' image becomes distorted. Let's take an example: People say we don't need ANYBODY to teach us, to know Jesus. "We have the Bible. Why need a church?". So, by this, people get a wrong image of how God wanted us to be. God wanted us to be in community, and if we stray from our communities, we could end up misinterpreting the Bible and making our own church. And if i'm wrong, could you please explain me why isn't there ONE christian church, with ONE SAME set of beliefs? There WAS in the times of Jesus!
But now let's see the historical context. For jews, an "eye of a needle" was a special kind of tunnel between the mountains, very small. For a camel to pass thru that "eye of needle", one had to unload the camel, get the camel to pass, and then take the things and reload the camel with all the baggage.
Taking this into account, what Jesus said was that we will have first to get rid of our posessions to enter heaven. That is, not to see everything as "ours", but as God's. That way we will stop loving things such as money.
See, remember that Israel was an eastern country - in the times of Jesus, and in those places, the words and actions had a different meaning that now. For example, washing your hands was a way to be 'purified', it was a sacred act before eating - not a simple antiseptical way to prevent diceases. That's why we all need to read history to understand well the bible. Or at least hear our pastors.
"But that's not fair! I was told i just needed the Bible". Hey - i'm sorry, but remember that the gospels were written BY EASTERNS, FOR EASTERNS. We are occidentals. How can you understand things such as the use of names (and giving a new name to a person), with the occidental way of thinking?
For example, let's look at the famous "Holy Laughter": We see a verse that MIGHT SUPPORT the 'drunkness in Spirit': Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, "What does this mean?" Some, however, made fun of them and said, "They have had too much wine." (Acts 2:13).
If we read that single verse, we can affirm - see , see? It IS biblical!
Oh, really? Let's go on with the lecture...
"Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and
addressed the crowd: 'Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let
me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. These men are not
drunk, as you suppose. It's only nine in the morning!' (Acts 2:14-15)
Notice that Peter didn't say "these men are drunk, but only spiritually"; he said instead: "these men are NOT drunk" (emphasis mine). And if he said it, it was to correct those who _mocked_ the disciples. Then we see: The people laughing weren't laughing because of the Holy Spirit. They laughed because they MOCKED the apostles. See, how we have to use FULL context of the Bible?
Notice also that the apostles weren't drunk in the spirit. They were speaking in other peoples' tongues: Utterly amazed, they asked: "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language?" (Acts 2:7-8)
So, if any 'theory' you have about God, the Church, salvation, or whatever, CANNOT BE FULLY SUPPORTED by the Bible, taken IN FULL CONTEXT, then it is extra-biblical. (A challenge: Is 2Tim 3:16 taken out of context? What does Paul say about teaching and traditions in the verses before? - sorry for the addon, maybe it goes out of place but i think we should include EVERYTHING into the study).
It might happen that a belief that EVERYONE considers a truth, a 'heart of the gospel' is even is anti-biblical. And why could everyone follow this? Human tradition. If your pastor says that this doctrine is anti-biblical, who would you believe? Traditionalism and peer pressure can make ANYTHING be biblical. You should be wary: ALWAYS SEARCH IN CONTEXT. It's not valid to support a doctrine taken from 2 Bible verses, with a verse taken from another book in the bible.
(Note that extra-biblical and anti-biblical are not the same things; for example, thru a deep analysis we see that the bible DOES support the doctrine of the Holy Trinity; even when there is no _explicit_ mention of the term 'trinity' in the bible. But still, the passages used to study it are taken in full context). So, the best thing to do, if we don't find coherent support for our doctrine, to read the bible again, and search if this doctrine has any biblical counter-proof.
For example, i was discussing with a former catholic the epistle to the Romans.
She said something like this: The Bible says that we're not saved by our works, but by our faith alone (Romans 4:3,5-8,11,16,22-25).
Originally, many bible quotes could mean much biblical support for an idea, right? Let's analyse what Romans 4:3,5-8,11,16,22-25 tells us.
I'll put what my friend IGNORED, in red. What she actually quoted is in black.
|
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. 9Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised:
That he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not
circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12And the father of circumcision to them who are
not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of
our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
13For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
14For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
15Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
|
16Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
17(As it is written, I have made thee a father of
many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead,
and calleth those things which be not as though they were. 18Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. 19And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb: 20He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. 22And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. 23Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. |
So, is Paul arguing about FAITH vs WORKS? No, not at all! He was arguing about if one had to be circumcised to be saved. The judaisers were very active in the Primitive Church, and fooled many christians to get circumcised to be "true" christians. Since Jesus had been circumcised, they had to be circumcised too.
And this is what Paul was against. He was clarifying that Abraham got justified before getting circumcised: By His faith in God. The other side was given to us in James epistle: He was justified because he obeyed God. (If he hadn't believed Him, he wouldn't have obeyed Him). So Paul wasn't talking about works/obedience/faith. He was talking about Jesus vs. circumsition.
But the discussion of Faith vs Works didn't start until Martin Luther. Paul had no idea that something like this might happen. He was worried about jews and gnostics. In fact, almost the whole epistle to the Romans was dedicated to circumsition vs Faith in Jesus. (Now Sola Fide is a complicated matter... i'm just saying Romans 3 doesn't support it in full context).
What we have here is a perfect example of twisting the scriptures:One would never dare to make a Bible while removing certain verses which don't fit in his theology. Instead he skips them. It's cheaper, more standard and widely accepted. But is it OK?
Which is more: The bible verse numbers that you see in your bible weren't
introduced until 1555 by Robert Steven.
Before, each chapter in the Bible was divided in 7 parts, designated with letters
(and this was introduced in 1240 by Cardinal Hugo de San Caro). This division
was used only to look up easily some passages in the Holy Scriptures. It
was NOT designed to quote 2 verses out of context and then claim this or that
belief to be biblical!
Can you imagine how many denominations will doctrinally reunite, by just taking
this into account?
Another note: There weren't printed books in the old times - printers weren't available yet. This is why i'm emphasizing so much the taking into account the full context of a Bible passage. Because this way was the way the apostles wanted us to read the Scriptures. As a whole.
So - if you want to see what REALLY the Bible says about a certain topic, you shouldn't quote something like Romans 4:3,5-8,11,16,22-25. But the commas look so biblical, don't they?
Anyway, there are some facts we should know too about the bible:
The first books which were divided in "verses", were the poetical books of the
Bible (so much for doctrinal support).
The division in chapters of the Bible was not the one you see... before,
Matthew had 170 sections, Mark 62, Luke 152, and John, 80. And this is in
one manuscript (the vatican code) of the New Testament. In the 'alexandrine'
code, Matthew has 68 chapters; Mark 48, Luke 83, and John, 18. (And this is
just the gospels).
The current division in chapters comes from the XIII century, with Steve Langton. This division was so succesful that it was adopted by the University of Paris, in 1226, and even by the jews (in the OT). Later some minor details of this division were changed.
(Source: Enciclopedia de la Biblia, Ediciones Garriga, S.A., Barcelona (Spain). Volume I, A-B. Biblia: Division en capítulos y versículos de la (Bible: Division in chapters and verses of)
"His [Paul's] letters contain some things that are hard
to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other
Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16)
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by
the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the
will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy
Spirit. (2 Peter 1:20-21)
Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned. (Titus 3:10-11)
OK now.
There is an important document, written in the Council Vatican II, entitled "unitatis redintegratio" (re-integration for unity). Here i will quote the points that i consider the most important ones which explain, more or less, how this union should be performed.
|
5. The attainment of union is the concern of the whole Church, faithful and
shepherds alike. This concern extends to everyone, according to his talent,
whether it be exercised in his daily Christian life or in his theological and
historical research. This concern itself reveals already to some extent the
bond of brotherhood between all Christians and it helps toward that full and
perfect unity which God in His kindness wills.
In certain special circumstances, such as the prescribed prayers "for unity,"
and during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable that
Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren. Such prayers in
common are certainly an effective means of obtaining the grace of unity, and
they are a true expression of the ties which still bind Catholics to their
separated brethren. "For where two or three are gathered together in my name,
there am I in the midst of them" (Mt 18:20). Yet worship in common (communicatio in sacris) is not to be considered as a means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of Christian unity. There are two main principles governing the practice of such common worship: first, the bearing witness to the unity of the Church, and second, the sharing in the means of grace. Witness to the unity of the Church very generally forbids common worship to Christians, but the grace to be had from it sometimes commends this practice. The course to be adopted, with due regard to all the circumstances of time, place, and persons, is to be decided by local episcopal authority, unless otherwise provided for by the Bishops' Conference according to its statutes, or by the Holy See. 9. We must get to know the outlook of our separated brethren. To achieve this purpose, study is of necessity required, and this must be pursued with a sense of realism and good will. Catholics, who already have a proper grounding, need to acquire a more adequate understanding of the respective doctrines of our separated brethren, their history, their spiritual and liturgical life, their religious psychology and general background. Most valuable for this purpose are meetings of the two sides-especially for discussion of theological problems-where each can treat with the other on an equal footing-provided that those who take part in them are truly competent and have the approval of the bishops. From such dialogue will emerge still more clearly what the situation of the Catholic Church really is. In this way too the outlook of our separated brethren will be better understood, and our own belief more aptly explained. 10. Sacred theology and other branches of knowledge, especially of an historical nature, must be taught with due regard for the ecumenical point of view, so that they may correspond more exactly with the facts. It is most important that future shepherds and priests should have mastered a theology that has been carefully worked out in this way and not polemically, especially with regard to those aspects which concern the relations of separated brethren with the Catholic Church. This importance is the greater because the instruction and spiritual formation of the faithful and of religious depends so largely on the formation which their priests have received. Moreover, Catholics engaged in missionary work in the same territories as other Christians ought to know, particularly in these times, the problems and the benefits in their apostolate which derive from the ecumenical movement. 11. The way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren. It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded. (False irenicism is something like not telling some parts of our faith, to 'keep united', instead of sharing everything we believe in. Jesus doesn't like half truths. A half truth is worse a lie, it's like being ashamed of Jesus because we'd want the world's acceptance - note from the editor).
At the same time, the Catholic faith must be explained more profoundly and
precisely, in such a way and in such terms as our separated brethren can also
really understand.
Moreover, in ecumenical dialogue, Catholic theologians standing fast by the
teaching of the Church and investigating the divine mysteries with the
separated brethren must proceed with love for the truth, with charity, and with
humility. When comparing doctrines with one another, they should remember that
in Catholic doctrine there exists a "hierarchy" of truths, since they vary in
their relation to the fundamental Christian faith. Thus the way will be opened
by which through fraternal rivalry all will be stirred to a deeper
understanding and a clearer presentation of the unfathomable riches of Christ.
(cf. Eph 3,8) |
It is because the problem is not in the Bible, and cannot be solved with the Bible alone - the problem came from the distorted image of Jesus (see figure) that the other person has.
See, a person didn't believe in Hell because he considered that God was too good to send a person to hell. But this person had his eyes blind-folded, he couldn't see that there are people so closed of heart that they WOULD GO to hell for themselves, just for the sake of rejecting God (actually, that's the theological definition of Hell - eternal rejection of God, and all His love and peace - and where there's no love, peace, and happiness, there is suffering, torment, and sadness - see?)
Sometimes we are trying to solve the problem of a heresy by using the bible. But a person that has a wrong concept of a doctrine can only be corrected by explaining what we are trying to explain (including the small print and minor details). For example, we catholics believe that grace is the inhabitation of God inside us, and other christians believe that grace is JUST the assurance of salvation - and nothing else.
Let's take another example: John Smith (in 1611 i think) started the idea of "Once Saved, Always saved". But he also believed that someone had to be baptised (and this, via immersion). Then, some people stuck with the "always saved" part, and rejected the idea of baptism. But there's more - what Smith REALLY meant, is that if we're baptised we wouldn't POSSIBLY commit one of those sins which would make us unworthy of heaven (and THAT would be the assurance of salvation - in other words, it is the Holy Spirit which enables us to behave well (not sinning gravely and performing good works), and thus, we would go to heaven. (Notice that Catholicism agrees with that, with the exception that we can lose the Holy Spirit if we sin the "minor" sins too often, and that would lead us to greater sins - this is, we still retain our freedom of will). Anyway -
returning to the baptism doctrine, some other people just stick with the "always saved part", and think: "I can sin all what i want. Jesus already died for me". And we still wonder why christianity is being divided so much... we only learn slogans, and not doctrines (But of course, if we "are already saved", then we don't need the Bible anymore... we don't even need to study our own doctrine!). But let me tell you, that if someone loses his/her salvation (or his/her 'oportunity to be saved'), because of your bad explanation of a doctrine, (or by your bad behavior due to YOUR misunderstanding of some doctrine), you are partially responsible for his soul, ok?
Other times, the person has a psychological trouble because he/she was hurt by some people of certain church or denomination, and just cannot accept their teachings because of his/her own bitterness. See - if the problem didn't begin with the Bible, the problem cannot be solved with the bible - we need to go for a further understanding. Let's see the following diagram:
See, if a person has a problem with, let's say... language analysis (for example, if the bible says "anyone who believes" and the person thought it meant "anyone who had believed at a time", that person will not get out of the error no matter how much you show him the Bible in all its translations and editions. But when you explain: Look - let's see the original greek for this - see, this word means "continuous belief", and not "event", then that person will understand what you meant. Most probably he will say "you would have started by that!"
See, the key here is a long study and sharing one's COMPLETE view of a doctrine. Unless we share everything of our beliefs (and NOT hide ANYTHING), we won't get anywhere. Why? We try to explain the "why" and not the "what". Have you ever wondered, for example, why is it so hard to explain something to another denomination person? This person was TAUGHT - you come and PROVE, instead of TEACHING what you know. So, how will we KNOW EXACTLY where's the other person's error? PRAYER. Without prayer, it's even hopeless to start. Thinking that we can do everything for ourselves won't get us anywhere. Pray, pray, pray - you can even try to dedicate all your good works to God, as a prayer (it works for me!), specially those which get you most exhausted (like, say, washing the car). And remember, always have an open heart. We all need it! :)
But other times, well, people have closed their hearts to God - and since only thru the Holy Spirit we can understand the great divine mysteries, those who don't have the Holy Spirit (i.e. stubborn sinners) cannot understand these things well. That's why repentance of all your sins (because none of us is sinless) is ESSENTIAL for ecumenism.
To finish, I can only end with a prayer.
|
Father, we pray for your fold, that may all of us be one, as you are One. Fill
the hearts of your people with the fire of your love, and the face of the
earth will be renewed. Please enlighten all of us, bring back those who have
strayed away from you, because nothing is impossible for you. We also pray,
all the people who are reading this, to help those hesitating and
doubting. Don't let anyone be misguided by any wrong concept of you. We hope
that every day the world will be more united in love, while having your son
Jesus as our savior. In His name, we beg you Lord, Amen. |