/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>717986

That doesn't answer the OP.

>inb4 no serious answers because following Christ has little to nothing to do with which church you belong to, but rather your attitude towards God and His creation

>that attitude being love and compassion

>I really wanna see “we’re in the one true church!” memers explain this verse.

Hi.

>Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name?

Christ will cast out even those who cast out demons in His Holy Name…

yet,

>Now some also of the Jewish exorcists who went about, attempted to invoke over them that had evil spirits, the name of the Lord Jesus, saying: I conjure you by Jesus, whom Paul preacheth. 14And there were certain men, seven sons of Sceva, a Jew, a chief priest, that did this. 15But the wicked spirit, answering, said to them: Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you? 16And the man in whom the wicked spirit was, leaping upon them, and mastering them both, prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.

Explain it, OP. The Jews whom had no faith in Christ were trounced by the demons, yet, Christ affirms that even those who successfully cast out demons in His name (through Faith) will be cast out.

How do you explain this?

>And the king went in to see the guests: and he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment.

That "special church" OP, IS the wedding garment. If you are not wearing it, you will be cast out.

>>718000

Nice trips, am not OP but wanted to reply

>wedding garment

Since that story is a metaphor for who will be allowed into the Kingdom of Heaven, we can assume "wedding garment" is also a metaphor. The wedding garment is your aura so to speak. Has it been purified through faith and good works? If not, you won't be getting in, so to speak. It has nothing to do with organizational affiliation.

>>718013

Obviously, multiple interpretations may be valid, but taken in context with the Lord's prayer that His Church shall not splinter while in the Garden…

That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me.

How can there be multiple wedding garments? Who has ever taught prior to the Great Schism, or the Reformation, that there was more than One?

There was never more than one Ark, either.

>>718000

The first passage you cited doesn’t prove the Church is a physical entity as opposed to a spiritual gathering, it’s just saying there will be false Christians. I don’t deny that.

The second passage you cited is about people who have no faith, outside of the spiritual church.

The third passage is a reach. Why is he the wedding garment the church and not, say, the grace of Christ? The word of God?

The point of the OP verse is that this person was endorsed by Jesus even though he wasn’t a part of Christ’s physical organization. Christ didn’t care, because it was the spirit that mattered.

>>718035

My quotations are all inter-connected, do not disentangle them as if they are all unrelated.

1. Our Lord never abolished the synagogue nor the Temple, and the idea that the New Covenant shall not have any physical place to worship would be a strange and new doctrine that all the Early Christians and the Apostles would reject.

You put words in Our Lord's mouth forbidding the physical place of worship, because you despise it, and do not want to be tied to it.

2. Obviously, and it ties straight back into 1., where Our Lord affirms that even those who over-throw demons by virtue of their Faith in His Holy Name will be cast out out. I'd argue this even suffices to throw out Sola Fide.

3. Because there is only one. The idea that there was more than one united Church is a strange and new idea, just as much as there never being a physical place of worship is.

>The point of the OP verse is that this person was endorsed by Jesus even though he wasn’t a part of Christ’s physical organization. Christ didn’t care, because it was the spirit that mattered.

Yet, Christ affirms that He shall throw out even those who cry out "Lord, Lord!" and works miracles and throws out demons in His name.

You must admit either Our Lord is contradicting Himself…or there is another qualifier you are neglecting, perhaps, a singular qualifier that can be identified with the Wedding Garment…a True Church.

>>718000

>That "special church" OP, IS the wedding garment

Actually it's the righteousness of Christ

>>718121

1. I think you are somewhat misunderstanding the thread. It’s not about physical places of worship, it’s about Earthly institutions. Churches like the Catholic Church, the Mormons, The Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. all claim that their organization is the only source of salvation and if you’re not a member you’re not going to Heaven. This passage is saying Jesus allowed people to be saved outside of his church.

2. The “many will say to me Lord Lord” verse is saying there are false Christians. Nobody is denying that. However, that doesn’t suddenly mean that the only true Christians are people who are members of some specific church. You can be a true Christian and be a Lutheran, a Baptist, a Methodist, or even a member of a heretical false faith who disagrees with your churches teachings and relies on God

3. This qualifier is just the spiritual church. If only people who were a part of e.g. the Catholic Church find salvation, the OP verses would be null and void. If every Christian ever got into Heaven, your verses would be null and void. The solution is simple: many Christians regardless of denomination will be let into Heaven, and many others regardless of denomination will be denied.

>>718121

>1. Our Lord never abolished the synagogue nor the Temple, and the idea that the New Covenant shall not have any physical place to worship would be a strange and new doctrine that all the Early Christians and the Apostles would reject.

Christ did in fact abolish the temple by His death, but why do you call your church a "physical place to worship" when an institution is an abstract entity? The Roman Catholic Church is not a place, it is a group. Do you imply I need to be in Rome to worship God? You have no point

>Our Lord affirms that even those who over-throw demons by virtue of their Faith in His Holy Name will be cast out out

You say they had both faith and works, so I ask on what grounds are they dismissed? Seeing as in your interpretation they are lacking in nothing, there would be no basis for their damnation, but according to Jesus, while the damned present their works, showing no faith in Christ, the saved don't even realize they did good works. So there is but one difference between the reprobate and elect, that the latter has faith in Christ.

>Because there is only one. The idea that there was more than one united Church is a strange and new idea, just as much as there never being a physical place of worship is.

You're just ignoring the argument and repeating yourself like nothing was said at all.

>>718167

Which you only get if you're in His Church. You know, nobody will enter Heaven unless you eat of His Body.

>>718175

> I think you are somewhat misunderstanding the thread. It’s not about physical places of worship, it’s about Earthly institutions

The topic was changed in the response, so I addressed it.

>Churches like the Catholic Church, the Mormons, The Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. all claim that their organization is the only source of salvation and if you’re not a member you’re not going to Heaven.

And one of these has to be right, because Christ proclaims He built a Church upon St. Peter, and it has the authority to loosen and bide on Heaven and Earth.

>The “many will say to me Lord Lord” verse is saying there are false Christians.

How? You need faith to expel demons in the name of Jesus, yet, they will be denied. If they were false Christians, they would not be able to exorcise demons, just like the Jews.

You need a way better answer, friend.

>>718182

> Do you imply I need to be in Rome to worship God? You have no point

You're changing the goal-post and you are silly. Christ proclaimed He will build a Church, and this Church has the authority to bind and loosen on Heaven and Earth. This isn't given to you, me, or any loose spiritual gathering.

You have a good two thousand years worth of the Catholic Church/Orthodox Church to draw upon as well. None who knew the Apostles, nor did the Apostles, nor did Christ ever teach what you teach.

>so I ask on what grounds are they dismissed?

Ask Christ. You need faith in His name to dismiss demons, so how do those whom have faith face dismissal as well?

>but according to Jesus, while the damned present their works, showing no faith in Christ, the saved don't even realize they did good works

LOL. Sure, we go through life unaware of good or bad work…who taught you this?

>You're just ignoring the argument and repeating yourself like nothing was said at all.

It's a poor argument that calls Christ a liar, that lays down contradiction at His feet. I myself am not worried, I have the Church and the communion of Saints to testify to the Truth.

>>718324

>Which you only get if you're in His Church

No, actually you get that from Christ for faith in Him, not from the pope for submission to him

>You know, nobody will enter Heaven unless you eat of His Body

Which you do by faith

<Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

>>718327

>You're changing the goal-post

I don't think you know what that means

>Christ proclaimed He will build a Church

And as we've established, that ekklesia (assembly) is not a grand papal bureaucracy that would not actually exist for a millennium after Christ, but none other than the sum total of believers in Jesus Christ. Where the gospel is preached, where the sacraments are practiced, there is the Church.

>This isn't given to you, me, or any loose spiritual gathering.

While I agree that it isn't you, it is me, and every other Christian, because the power to bind and loose is the power to bind or loose the sinner from his chains of sin, which we accomplish when we proclaim "you are forgiven" or "you are condemned" upon repentance or rejection respectively. Though this power is specially held by a minister of the gospel because he has the power to bind someone to or loose him from the kingdom of heaven. This dual function is why it is plural, "keys". It opens both a set of chains and the gates.

>You have a good two thousand years worth of the Catholic Church

It is very easy to claim antiquity, altogether different to do so truthfully.

>Orthodox Church

They do not share your doctrine.

>None who knew the Apostles, nor did the Apostles, nor did Christ ever teach what you teach

Again, real easy to say that, but when we actually look at their words which have come down to us preserved to this very day, we find something really different. The problem is you don't care what they said. You'll dismiss it much like sodomites, "it's just your personal interpretation". You only care what your popes say

>Ask Christ

No thanks. You're the one with the strange and novel interpretation designed for the sole purpose of justifying an unbiblical institution, so I'll let you be the one to deal with the inconsistencies of it.

>LOL. Sure, we go through life unaware of good or bad work…who taught you this?

<Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’

>It's a poor argument that calls Christ a liar, that lays down contradiction at His feet. I myself am not worried, I have the Church and the communion of Saints to testify to the Truth.

At least before when you ignored the argument what you said still had something to do with the topic at hand, now it's like you've forgotten what thread you're in and you've started to hallucinate

>>718386

>No, actually you get that from Christ for faith in Him, not from the pope for submission to him

Who has the authority to bide and loosen on Earth then, friend?

>Which you do by faith

Which is the Holy Eucharist, by faith.

>And as we've established, that ekklesia (assembly) is not a grand papal bureaucracy that would not actually exist for a millennium after Christ

"grand papal bureaucracy" is your own personal moniker for the Church, but it is a Church nonetheless.

>that would not actually exist for a millennium after Christ

It's existed for two millennia, actually. Otherwise, Christ lied.

>where the sacraments are practiced,

And what do you consider to be "sacraments", friend?

>it is me, and every other Christian

Begone Korah.

>>718391

>Which is the Holy Eucharist, by faith.

The Eucharist is not received by faith, but yes it is related.

>And what do you consider to be "sacraments", friend?

The Lord's supper and holy baptism.

>Begone Korah

Funny you should call me that when what Korah wanted to do was overthrow God's order and make himself a priest, and what Rome wants to do is overthrow God's order and make themselves priests.

This reply was shockingly barebones. If you feel you can't deal with the arguments you don't have to respond, anon. you also don't have to keep being a papist repent