Mankind's problem today is what it has always been: Sin.
Personal faith in Jesus Christ is the only remedy.
The Bible is God's gift to us; it is our plumbline, our rule of measure.
quora.com indicates that there are 34,000 Christian denominations in the world; Denominations are an expression of the massively trans-cultural, ethnic, geographical and ideological influence of Christianity. When viewed historically and globally, we are safe in saying there are hundreds, likely thousands, of Protestant denominations. Also, don’t forget the megachurches, which in 2000 A.D. numbered 1,650 with nearly 40 percent of them non-denominational, according to the Hartford Institute for Religion Research.
The Christian denominational landscape is a reflection of the freedom that we have in Christ to study and understand the word of God for ourselves, and yet still remain spiritually united, 'one in Christ.'
I am not responsible for the number of existing Christian denominations, nor, I assume, are you.
The Catholic Encyclopedia is a resource on Catholic teaching, history, and information (there is now an easy-to-search online version).
I have had a copy of it as well as the Catholic Catechism in my home library since the mid 80s, but I would take anything either says with a grain of salt, as they are not Scripture, not the word of God, but merely that of men.
It was originally printed between 1907 and 1912 in fifteen hard copy volumes. The first volume appeared in March 1907 and the last three volumes appeared in 1912, followed by a master index volume in 1914 and later supplementary volumes. It claims to have been designed "to give its readers full and authoritative information on the entire cycle of Catholic interests, action and doctrine,"according to Rome, i.e., the Vatican.
The text received a nihil obstat from an official censor, Remy Lafort, on November 1, 1908, and an imprimatur from John Murphy Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Under copyright law of the United States, all works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain.
The encyclopedia was designed to serve the Catholic Church, concentrating on information related to the Church and explaining matters from the Catholic point of view. It records the accomplishments of Catholics and others in nearly all intellectual and professional pursuits, including artists, educators, poets and scientists. While more limited in focus than other general encyclopedias, it was far broader in scope than previous efforts at comprehensive Catholic encyclopedias, which covered only internal Church affairs.
The Roman Catholic Institution did not yet exist in the 2nd century.
The fledgling church of Jesus Christ, however, did.
Christ told His disciples to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Mat:28:19).
That Jesus said name and not names is normal grammatical construction—a shortened way of saying, "In the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Spirit." Surely "name" in this verse could hardly refer to another name"Lord Jesus Christ"not even mentioned there! Isaiah:9:6
is similar: "His name [not names] shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace." If the UPC argument is valid at Matthew:28:19
, then it must be valid in Isaiah:9:6
also. If so, then "mighty God" is a "title or position held by God," and the "name" meant in Isaiah:9:6
is also "Lord Jesus Christ"!
In fact, God has many names such as Elohim (the Strong One—Genesis:1:1
and 2,000-plus other times), Jehovah Elohim (the Lord God, hundreds of times), Jehovah-rapha (the Lord that heals—Exodus:15:26), Jehovah-tsidkenu (the Lord our righteousness—Jeremiah:23:6), the Most High God (Genesis:14:18 plus 47 more times), Lord of Hosts (more than 200 times; 14 times it says "the Lord of hosts is his name"); and others. As for the Son of God, Isaiah:9:6 lists only some of His names. The angel told Joseph, "Thou shalt call his name Jesus (Mat:1:21). His name is also Immanuel (Isa:7:14), etc.
Why did Jesus say to baptize specifically in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Because nothing could be more fitting for that which symbolizes the believer's identification with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection. The Father gave and sent the Son to be our Savior; the Son died for our sins; and it was through the Holy Spirit, by which we are born again, that Christ "offered Himself without spot to God" (Heb:9:14).
There is not one verse in the Bible that states that anyone was baptized in the name of "Lord Jesus Christ."
"Acts:2:38 says "in the name of Jesus Christ"; Acts:4:12 refers back to verse 10, which says "in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth"; Acts:8:16 says "by the name of the Lord Jesus." Acts:19:5 says they were baptized "in the name of the Lord Jesus."
"In His name" means as He had instructed it to be done; i.e., in the name of "the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit."
That this was the accepted "formula" can be deduced from Paul's actions. He asked them whether they had received the Holy Ghost, and they said, "We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost." Paul's shocked response was, "Unto what then were ye baptized?" (Acts:19:2-3). Why ask about their baptism? Because no one could be baptized "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost" and not hear of the Holy Ghost! Paul would not have asked that question if baptism was "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ."
Paul's understanding of baptism, however, was quite different. He writes to the Corinthians, "I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius...and [the] household of Stephanas... I know not whether I baptized any other" (1 Cor:1:14-16
). Yet Paul calls himself the "father" of the Corinthians and explains why: "for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel" (4:15). They had been born again into God's family as His children, and Paul had been the means of their salvation—without baptizing them.
No, baptism is not, as some teach, essential to salvation. Paul reminds the Corinthians that they were saved through believing the gospel he preached: "How that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures..." (1 Cor:15:3
). Paul repeatedly declares that we are saved only by believing the gospel. For example: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth [it]" (Rom:1:16
). It is the gospel that saves, not baptism. Salvation comes through believing the gospel, not by being baptized. In fact, Paul declared, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (1 Cor:1:17
). Clearly baptism is no part of the gospel and thus has nothing to do with salvation.
Then what about the verses that say we must be baptized to be saved? What verses? There is not one in the Bible! Yes, Mark:16:16
says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," but that doesn't say that baptism is essential to salvation, only that saved people get baptized. The rest of the verse says, "but he that believeth not shall be damned." Nowhere does the Bible say, "He that is not baptized shall be damned," or "If you only believe but don't get baptized you are lost." There are scores of verses that say, "He that believeth is saved," but only one that says, "He that believeth and is baptized is saved." And scores of verses declare that if we don't believe the gospel we are lost—but not one says that if we are not baptized we are lost.
Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, yet as John:4:2
tells us, He never baptized anyone. Why didn't Christ, like Paul, baptize at least a few people? If He didn't even baptize one then He obviously took care not to do so for a specific reason: If the Savior of the world who did all that was necessary for our salvation baptized no one, then baptism clearly has nothing to do with salvation! The thief on the cross was never baptized. If someone about to die cries out, "What must I do to be saved?" must we respond, "There is no hope for you because we can't baptize you"?
Then wouldn't it be best to baptize everyone as infants? No, that is a fraud. To the question, "What doth hinder me to be baptized?" Philip replied, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest" (Acts:8:36-37). Baptism is for believers, and no infant has made that choice. "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized" (Acts:2:41); "When they believed...they were baptized" (8:12); "many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized" (18:8). Baptism is a public declaration of faith in Christ, an act of obedience to Christ's command, and thus required of every Christian — but is does not save the soul; it follows salvation.
But didn't Jesus say that we must be "Born again of water and of the Spirit"? Yes. He said this to Nicodemus, a rabbi, to whom it would not mean baptism because that was unknown in the Old Testament. Israel had ordinances of "washing with water for cleansing" the priests or a leper or someone who had been defiled (see Exodus 30,40; Leviticus 13,15, etc.). So Christ was saying that "cleansing from sin" and a special work of the Holy Spirit were essential to being born again. Ephesians:5:26 explains that the New Testament fulfillment of Old Testament water cleansing is "the washing of water by the word." Peter says we are "born again...by the word of God" (1 Pt 1:23). Paul calls it "the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Titus:3:5); i.e., "born of water and the Spirit."
It was to Israel that John the Baptist preached "the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (Mk 1:4, etc.), which they understood in the context of Old Testament water cleansing. Baptism was also connected with the "remission of sins" when offered to Jews in the Book of Acts (whether preached by Peter on the Day of Pentecost (2:38), or to Saul (22:16). That this was associated with Israel's practice of water cleansing, and not an indication that the physical act of baptism saves anyone, is clear and in the context of all of the scriptures.
The idea that baptism is essential to salvation comes from Roman Catholicism in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "The Sacrament of Baptism…Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life…through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn [born again] as sons of God…" (Sec. 1213, p.342, emphasis added).Vatican II declares, "By baptism men and women are cleansed from original sin and from all personal sins, they are born again as children of God...." (Vatican Council II, Costello Publishing, Vol 2, p 561); "Baptism is also to be given to infants...[that] they may be reborn of water and the Holy Spirit to divine life in Christ Jesus" (Vol 2, p 391), "Baptism, which is necessary for salvation...frees us from original sin and communicates to us a share in divine life" (Vol 2, pp 111-12). This is not true!
The Bible is very clear that the Old Testament sacrifices and other physical acts, such as circumcision, tithing or keeping the Sabbath, could not pay the debt demanded by God's justice for sin. They were symbolic of the coming sacrifice of Christ and the heart response of faith required for salvation. Judaism's great error was its sacramentalism and formalism: finding salvation in the mere act of prayer, ritual and other deeds rather than in repentance and faith. Matthew 15 and 23 give examples of Christ's scathing rebuke of Jewish religious leaders for this error that led millions astray.
Christ criticized the rabbis for giving God His "tithe" even from the herbs in their gardens, while neglecting "judgment, mercy and faith." He quoted God's rebuke of Israel through Isaiah: "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me." To make a physical act/ritual efficacious for salvation makes it impossible to trust Christ for salvation. It must be either/or. It can't be both.
Roman Catholicism— offers salvation through sacraments, which are physical rituals ministered by the priests. The Bible, however, has only two ordinances, both commanded by Jesus: baptism and communion, or the Lord's supper.
Offering salvation through baptism or communion or any other physical act is a heretical error, for to imagine that either has merit as a physical act repeats the error of Judaism. Both are symbolic of the believer's identification with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection, but neither is efficacious for forgiveness of sins or for salvation."
thebereancall.org
moochie wrote:
Good morning,
Thank you for your reply.
I agree to what you have said here.
"but there are "imitation" Christians or "pretend-to-be" Christians"
So then this group includes all of those who have either chosen to follow, or have been deceive by, the numerous doctrines, and traditions of men, by which they pervert the true gospel as well?
The answer unfortunately is yes.
I see that you are well acquainted with the Bible, so I will not need to copy and paste Apostle Paul's
Galatians 1:6-9.
The problem which exist today, remains as it was when Jesus walked those dusty roads. There were others who did not follow along with Jesus and his disciples, but they did use the Name of Jesus, to do miraculous things.
Currently there are over 200 Christian Denominations in America.
[I believe this to be a credible reason for the unbeliever, to remain skeptical]
All professing to preach The Gospel which Jesus and the Apostles preached.
Although only a few actually preach the Matthew 28:19--John 3:5--Matthew 16:19--Acts 2:38 oneness Gospel message.
The reason is found here:
The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: "The baptismal formula was changed from the Name Of Jesus Christ to the Words/Titles father, son, and holy spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."
Any ideas as to why these found it necessary to make a change ?
moochie
Good morning, br Thank you for your reply. br I ag... (
show quote)