Elements Of The True Church?

[Vance]

#2. No. You assume that local prophets and teachers are alone,

Where do you get THAT??????

He was very specific that the local leaders WERE NOT ALONE.

[teddyaware]

Your point #1. We agree. 

 

#2. No. You assume that local prophets and teachers are alone, therefore are "not sufficient" to lead the church. I believe this is clearly false. In essence, saying that Jesus can't communicate accurately to them directly. Jesus can, does and will. 

 

Your example of Paul writing to the churches to continue to teach them is an example of a good teacher who is interested in doing all he can to complete his task. 

 

#3. The body of Christ is fit together by the Spirit of Christ, not man's organizational strength.

 

The local prophets did have the power and authority to lead the local Church's in which they served. But the New Testament Church model clearly indicates there were central leaders who stood at the head of the Church; men who were needed to handle situations that went beyond the purview of the authority or beyond the wisdom of the local leaders.

 

Here's a case in point:

1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.

2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.

3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,

4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,

5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (1 Corinthians 5)

 

So why did the leaders of the Church at Corinth need the Apostle Paul to command them in the name of the Lord to deliver the fornicator, spoken of, unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh? Could it be they weren't able to handle a difficult situation properly, even though there were local prophets among them, but needed a higher Church authority to properly straighten the mess out? Why? Is not this an example of a presiding Apostle fulfilling his divine mandate to perfect the saints, do the work of the ministry and edify the body of Christ? Is this not an example of a presiding Apostle making sure that the members of the Church be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine? (see Eph 4)

Edited May 5, 2014 by teddyaware

[danielwoods]

I agree, but we don't claim that the church's organization is a result of man's organizational strength.  Christ established the organization and is our head.  We are simply members of the body who organize and move as directed by our head (Christ).  There clearly is/was an organization.  You cannot dismiss the structure of the "body" and its members, or you have no head to direct you.  The strength of the organization is the head, by which authority its members function. 

 

I'll take what you say at face value. The question, is there a true church organization (visible) or is it only visible to Christ?

 

If as you say, it isn't the result of man's "organizational strength" then why the emphasis on who the Pope is (for the catholics) or who the President is (for the LDS)? 

 

The problem (as I see it) with the true church being a visible structure, is the projection of modern levels of communication back onto the 1st century church, and the complete lack of any mention of said structure being visible. 

[pogi]

I'll take what you say at face value. The question, is there a true church organization (visible) or is it only visible to Christ?

 

1 Corinthians 12 answers that question.  Paul states each member is aware (visible) and intimately related with the other for the body to function properly.   He also clarifies that the members of the body (eyes, ears, mouth, etc.) are representative of the ordained callings in the church such as "apostles, prophets, teachers, etc."  He states in verse 25 that there should be no division in the body, so if one part suffers, every part suffers with it (vs 26).

 

The fact that each member is aware of each other and their respective roles in the body and is intimately concerned with the rest of the body, it is evident that the organization is visible to us, its members, and not to Christ alone. 

 

If as you say, it isn't the result of man's "organizational strength" then why the emphasis on who the Pope is (for the catholics) or who the President is (for the LDS)? 

 

There isn't so much emphasis on who presides as there is emphasis on the authority and keys by which he presides.  It is not the man so much, but the office and authority that we are concerned with.

 

The problem (as I see it) with the true church being a visible structure, is the projection of modern levels of communication back onto the 1st century church, and the complete lack of any mention of said structure being visible. 

 

I think there is overwhelming evidence for such a structure made up of parts (ordained offices) or it would not have been mentioned. There can be no denial of the fact that there were ordained offices and officers in the church.  Christ ordained the apostles (1 Timothy 2:7), and the apostles ordained others to offices in the priesthood (Titus 1:5 and Acts 14:23).  This was all visible and documented in the Bible. 

 

Here is a good article which explains our position more in depth:

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_priesthood/What_does_the_Bible_teach

Edited May 5, 2014 by pogi

[danielwoods]

 

The local prophets did have the power and authority to lead the local Church's in which they served. But the New Testament Church model clearly indicates there were central leaders who stood at the head of the Church; men who were needed to handle situations that went beyond the purview of the authority or beyond the wisdom of the local leaders.

 

Here's a case in point:

1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.

2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.

3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,

4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,

5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (1 Corinthians 5)

 

So why did the leaders of the Church at Corinth need the Apostle Paul to command them in the name of the Lord to deliver the fornicator, spoken of, unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh? Could it be they weren't able to handle a difficult situation properly, even though there were local prophets among them, but needed a higher Church authority to properly straighten the mess out? Why? Is not this an example of a presiding Apostle fulfilling his divine mandate to perfect the saints, do the work of the ministry and edify the body of Christ? Is this not an example of a presiding Apostle making sure that the members of the Church be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine? (see Eph 4)

 

At one point you claim that the local leaders/prophets aren't sufficient to lead the church. Now you're saying they are sufficient, but cite this passage as an example that central leadership was needed to that went beyond the authority or wisdom of the local leaders. 

 

Here's where taking a specific situation doesn't equal a ecclesiastic lesson. What I mean is the Corinthian church was a difficult situation, and took a lot of Paul's attention. The church was boasting about this immoral situation! So, they clearly were still in need of guidance and instruction. Does that mean that Paul was saying that all churches should seek the help and guidance of Apostles forever more? No. Paul didn't say that. He was referencing a particular situation that he felt needed to be dealt with, which indicated a need for his help and more instruction (hence the letter). 

 

Now, by way of balance, as I have stated before, leaders should always seek wise counsel from those who are older and wiser. So, don't take what my position to mean that one doesn't need others. We all need each other (the body of christ). 

[teddyaware]

At one point you claim that the local leaders/prophets aren't sufficient to lead the church. Now you're saying they are sufficient, but cite this passage as an example that central leadership was needed to that went beyond the authority or wisdom of the local leaders. 

 

Here's where taking a specific situation doesn't equal a ecclesiastic lesson. What I mean is the Corinthian church was a difficult situation, and took a lot of Paul's attention. The church was boasting about this immoral situation! So, they clearly were still in need of guidance and instruction. Does that mean that Paul was saying that all churches should seek the help and guidance of Apostles forever more? No. Paul didn't say that. He was referencing a particular situation that he felt needed to be dealt with, which indicated a need for his help and more instruction (hence the letter). 

 

Now, by way of balance, as I have stated before, leaders should always seek wise counsel from those who are older and wiser. So, don't take what my position to mean that one doesn't need others. We all need each other (the body of christ).

Never at any point would I have attempted to give the impression that the leaders of the local New Testament era congregations did not possess sufficient priesthood authority of their own to lead, guide and operate the Churches they were called to serve. If you got that impression, you misconstrued what I said and I would appreciate it if you would point to the specific line (or lines) where you got that incorrect impression.

All knowledgeable Latter-day Saints know that local Bishops and Stake Presidents have priesthood keys of power and authority that enable them to lead by revelation the congregations over which they have stewardship, and for this reason I wouldn't at all expect the local New Testament Church congregations to operate any differently. But the priesthood leaders of the local LDS congregations are ultimately answerable to the Apostles and Prophets who serve at the head of the Restored Church. And as my example clearly demonstrates, this is precisely how the New Testament era Church of Christ operated. The fact that you can't see the plainly evident fact that the New Testament Apostles and Prophets were the presiding general authorities of the Church, but that you rather offer endless rationalizations for your untenable positions serves as stark testimony to the fact that when necessity calls, the human mind has an endless capacity to explain away the obvious -- hence the proliferation of legions of lawyers.

 

Don't you think it's rather odd that the New testament scriptures were written by the very Apostles and Prophets whose leadership and authority you seem to want to minimize? If all the saints had equal priesthood authority to the Apostles and Prophets, why didn't the rank and file members of the Apostolic Era Church write any of the New Testament? Could it be that these men were perceived as having held important positions of presiding priesthood authority? Of course it is. And I'm quite sure most Evangelical Christians believe the same thing. Is it not so that your minimization of the authority of the Apostles is a minority Evangelical position? I'm quite sure it is.

 

I believe I've made a very strong case for the position of the LDS Church in this matter, so while I'll likely continue to participate on this thread I'm going to try to wind down somewhat because it's obvious you either cannot or will not acknowledge the obvious.   

Edited May 6, 2014 by teddyaware

[Gervin]

Don't you think it's rather odd that the New testament scriptures were written by the very Apostles and Prophets whose leadership and authority you seem to want to minimize? If all the saints had equal priesthood authority to the Apostles and Prophets, why didn't the rank and file members of the Apostolic Era Church write any of the New Testament?   

say what?

 

Mark was written by an associate of Peter

Luke and Acts written by an associate of Paul

Matthew was probably written by an anonymous Jewish Christian (A.D. 60-85)

2^nd and 3^rd John were written by the presbyter, which may or may not have been John, (A.D. 45-130)

Who wrote Hebrews?

Who wrote Titus and 1 & 2 Timothy? Scholars are fairly unanimous that it wasn’t Paul. 

Etc.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Gervin

[danielwoods]

 

1 Corinthians 12 answers that question.  Paul states each member is aware (visible) and intimately related with the other for the body to function properly.   He also clarifies that the members of the body (eyes, ears, mouth, etc.) are representative of the ordained callings in the church such as "apostles, prophets, teachers, etc."  He states in verse 25 that there should be no division in the body, so if one part suffers, every part suffers with it (vs 26).

 

The fact that each member is aware of each other and their respective roles in the body and is intimately concerned with the rest of the body, it is evident that the organization is visible to us, its members, and not to Christ alone. 

 

 

There isn't so much emphasis on who presides as there is emphasis on the authority and keys by which he presides.  It is not the man so much, but the office and authority that we are concerned with.

 

 

I think there is overwhelming evidence for such a structure made up of parts (ordained offices) or it would not have been mentioned. There can be no denial of the fact that there were ordained offices and officers in the church.  Christ ordained the apostles (1 Timothy 2:7), and the apostles ordained others to offices in the priesthood (Titus 1:5 and Acts 14:23).  This was all visible and documented in the Bible. 

 

Here is a good article which explains our position more in depth:

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_priesthood/What_does_the_Bible_teach

 

 

Please point me to the verse where Paul states that each member is aware of each other in the Body of christ? 

 

In response to the idea that 1 Cor. 12 is evidence of a "visible" church body, as opposed to one that is only visible fully to christ, I would point out that the passage says it is God who distributes the gifts, and not some authorized org. 

 

^"4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit^(H) distributes them. ⁵ There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. ⁶ There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone^(I) it is the same God^(J) at work."

 

In response to the authority and keys as interpreted by the LDS and Catholic church, I disagree. It's my position that the passage where this is derived is mis-interpreted. It isn't one organization on earth that is blessed with authority, but rather those (whosoever) who hold that one faith in Christ alone who holds all authority. 

 

Referencing that Paul directed them to have some organization doesn't indicate that there is but one monolithic body, rather, that any group must have some sense of organization to function.

[teddyaware]

say what?

In case you haven't been following my back and forth with Daniel, as far as I can tell he seems to minimize the role of the New Testament era Apostles of Jesus Christ. He seems to believe the Apostles of Christ -- like Peter, James, John and Paul -- possessed no more priesthood leadership authority to lead and guide the Church than did the leaders of the local congregations. So my point is simple: If the living Apostles of Jesus Christ, whom Paul says Christ Himself placed to be the presiding authorities of the New Testament era Church, were no different in possession of leadership authority than were the leaders of local Christian congregations, why is it that only the writings Apostles and Prophets of the Church of Christ were included in the New Testament? Why not also include the writings of local deacons and bishops? This is not a difficult concept to grasp, so I'm puzzled as to why a very intelligent person, such as you, found my question unreasonable. 

Edited May 6, 2014 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

say what?

 

Mark was written by an associate of Peter

Luke and Acts written by an associate of Paul

Matthew was probably written by an anonymous Jewish Christian (A.D. 60-85)

2^nd and 3^rd John were written by the presbyter, which may or may not have been John, (A.D. 45-130)

Who wrote Hebrews?

Who wrote Titus and 1 & 2 Timothy? Scholars are fairly unanimous that it wasn’t Paul. 

Etc.

I find this quite funny.

So why do you believe this gibberish at all? Why not throw it out as the philosophies of men? And clearly that is a very poor cut and paste- the fonts don't even match.

Edited May 6, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Gervin]

In case you haven't been following my back and forth with Daniel, as far as I can tell he seems to minimize the role of the New Testament era Apostles of Jesus Christ. He seems to believe the Apostles of Christ -- like Peter, James, John and Paul -- possessed no more priesthood leadership authority to lead and guide the Church than did the leaders of the local congregations. So my point is simple: If the living Apostles of Jesus Christ, whom Paul says Christ Himself placed to be the presiding authorities of the New Testament era Church, were no different in possession of leadership authority than were the leaders of local Christian congregations, why is it that only the writings Apostles and Prophets of the Church of Christ were included in the New Testament? Why not also include the writings of local deacons and bishops? This is not a difficult concept to grasp, so I'm puzzled as to why a very intelligent person, such as you, found my question unreasonable. 

who wrote Hebrews?

[teddyaware]

say what?

 

Mark was written by an associate of Peter

Luke and Acts written by an associate of Paul

Matthew was probably written by an anonymous Jewish Christian (A.D. 60-85)

2^nd and 3^rd John were written by the presbyter, which may or may not have been John, (A.D. 45-130)

Who wrote Hebrews?

Who wrote Titus and 1 & 2 Timothy? Scholars are fairly unanimous that it wasn’t Paul. 

Etc.

 

This is why Paul says Apostles and Prophets were placed at the head of the Church, and why I was careful to say the New Testament contains the writings of Apostles and Prophets. Mark served with Peter in the presiding councils of the Church. And as you indicate, the same can be said of the writer of Luke and Acts, All of the writers of the New Testament were either Apostles or Prophets. So you jumped to conclusions thinking I didn't know whereof I spoke.

 

P.S. I couldn't care less what the so called scholars have to say. Paul disdained worldly learned men and so do I. But you continue lean on the scholars if that's what you are wont to do.

Edited May 6, 2014 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

We clearly have quite an assortment of Evangelical opinion here.

One follows what scholars teach, and a couple of others are more fundamentalistic with their own private interpretations.

I think the benefits of a unified authoritative approach become totally obvious. The Lord's house is not one of confusion. This is what happens when you have each preacher forming his own church and pretending unity which does not exist.

[mfbukowski]

As I have said from the beginning the only way you can know these writings are from God is by personal testimony.

I now have a new appreciation for Moroni 10:4-5

What is scary is that these folks do not, and so therefore have no basis for following the bible at all- EXCEPT that they have been told to do so by some authority figure- parents, preachers etc

And yet they cannot even agree on the interpretations or who actually wrote the books. If we do not know who wrote them, how do we know they are inspired by God without a testimony??

Your beliefs are based on wet sand.

Edited May 6, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

P.S. I couldn't care less what the so called scholars have to say. Paul disdained worldly learned men and so do I. But you continue lean on the scholars if that's what you are wont to do.

As I know you know, the problem is not learned men- the problem is not affirming that God can confirm the truth of religious matters regardless of what learned men say.

[Gervin]

I find this quite funny.

So why do you believe this gibberish at all? Why not throw it out as the philosophies of men? And clearly that is a very poor cut and paste- the fonts don't even match.

I cut and paste from a Word document I wrote on.?!  If you think I plagiarized something, show me the source.   If mean-spiritedness and a judgmental nature are hallmarks of your belief system, then you're a good representative.

[Gervin]

All of the writers of the New Testament were either Apostles or Prophets. 

CFR

[teddyaware]

As I know you know, the problem is not learned men- the problem is not affirming that God can confirm the truth of religious matters regardless of what learned men say.

Which is why I was careful to say the worldly learned.

[danielwoods]

Never at any point would I have attempted to give the impression that the leaders of the local New Testament era congregations did not possess sufficient priesthood authority of their own to lead, guide and operate the Churches they were called to serve. If you got that impression, you misconstrued what I said and I would appreciate it if you would point to the specific line (or lines) where you got that incorrect impression.

All knowledgeable Latter-day Saints know that local Bishops and Stake Presidents have priesthood keys of power and authority that enable them to lead by revelation the congregations over which they have stewardship, and for this reason I wouldn't at all expect the local New Testament Church congregations to operate any differently. But the priesthood leaders of the local LDS congregations are ultimately answerable to the Apostles and Prophets who serve at the head of the Restored Church. And as my example clearly demonstrates, this is precisely how the New Testament era Church of Christ operated. The fact that you can't see the plainly evident fact that the New Testament Apostles and Prophets were the presiding general authorities of the Church, but that you rather offer endless rationalizations for your untenable positions serves as stark testimony to the fact that when necessity calls, the human mind has an endless capacity to explain away the obvious -- hence the proliferation of legions of lawyers.

 

Don't you think it's rather odd that the New testament scriptures were written by the very Apostles and Prophets whose leadership and authority you seem to want to minimize? If all the saints had equal priesthood authority to the Apostles and Prophets, why didn't the rank and file members of the Apostolic Era Church write any of the New Testament? Could it be that these men were perceived as having held important positions of presiding priesthood authority? Of course it is. And I'm quite sure most Evangelical Christians believe the same thing. Is it not so that your minimization of the authority of the Apostles is a minority Evangelical position? I'm quite sure it is.

 

I believe I've made a very strong case for the position of the LDS Church in this matter, so while I'll likely continue to participate on this thread I'm going to try to wind down somewhat because it's obvious you either cannot or will not acknowledge the obvious.   

 

In post # 276 - You said, "the fact that Paul communicated with the Corinthian Church so frequently strongly indicates that local congregations absolutely needed revelation and guidance from the governing central authorities of the Church -- the local prophets were not sufficient."

 

I guess I misconstrued what you meant, that they were sufficient?

 

James wasn't an Apostle. Luke wasn't an Apostle either. Both of them wrote what is now a portion of the New Testament. 

 

You know I agree with you to a point, that the Apostles of that time were the defacto leaders of the then new movement or church. However, even they taught that it was Jesus who was building his church, as in, "On this rock *I* will build my church". Not on this rock you will build it. 

[danielwoods]

We clearly have quite an assortment of Evangelical opinion here.

One follows what scholars teach, and a couple of others are more fundamentalistic with their own private interpretations.

I think the benefits of a unified authoritative approach become totally obvious. The Lord's house is not one of confusion. This is what happens when you have each preacher forming his own church and pretending unity which does not exist.

 

The benefits of a unified authoritative approach is no different than an assortment evangelical opinion, of which you criticize. Both are chosen by men. Unity is only found in Christ. 

 

 

As I have said from the beginning the only way you can know these writings are from God is by personal testimony.

I now have a new appreciation for Moroni 10:4-5

What is scary is that these folks do not, and so therefore have no basis for following the bible at all- EXCEPT that they have been told to do so by some authority figure- parents, preachers etc

And yet they cannot even agree on the interpretations or who actually wrote the books. If we do not know who wrote them, how do we know they are inspired by God without a testimony??

Your beliefs are based on wet sand.

 

 

If you only know things based on personal testimony, on what basis do you know something is true for me? 

 

If truth is only personal, and you only known your own truth. You have no authority to tell me I am wrong. Based on your reasoning of course. 

[mfbukowski]

I cut and paste from a Word document I wrote on.?!  If you think I plagiarized something, show me the source.   If mean-spiritedness and a judgmental nature are hallmarks of your belief system, then you're a good representative.

As usual, no comment on the argument, just personal attacks and the reason the fonts didn't match.

Nothing having to do with the argument I made. Smoke and mirrors. Do you believe in the bible, or bible scholars and why- that is the question you have repeatedly ignored.

How could you possibly find the bible to be inspired if all your scholars show you that no one who we though wrote it actually wrote it?

I am not judging anyone. The fact that you are dodging the central issues repeatedly has nothing to do with you personally, just the strength of your argument. You keep trying to divert the issues with clever come-backs but that doesn't fool anyone.

[mfbukowski]

The benefits of a unified authoritative approach is no different than an assortment evangelical opinion, of which you criticize. Both are chosen by men. Unity is only found in Christ. 

 

 

 

 

If you only know things based on personal testimony, on what basis do you know something is true for me? 

 

If truth is only personal, and you only known your own truth. You have no authority to tell me I am wrong. Based on your reasoning of course.

I am not trying to tell you you are wrong at all, just inconsistent.

I do not know what is true for you, either. But if you believe that you should not be here in the first place since our opinion is as good as yours.

That's the whole problem here and where your inconsistency lies. You say that all Christian approaches are fine as long as they are based on Christ, EXCEPT ours of course.

If you don't believe in authority you have no basis for criticizing ours.

In other words, quoting you above- YOU have no authority to tell us we are wrong. In fact you have no authority in any religious matter at all anyway, totally proving that this is just a waste of time.

[mfbukowski]

The benefits of a unified authoritative approach is no different than an assortment evangelical opinion, of which you criticize. Both are chosen by men. Unity is only found in Christ.

If unity is found in Christ and your opinions about Christ are not unified, one can only conclude that they are not based on Christ.

Simple logic

[Vance]

Never at any point would I have attempted to give the impression that the leaders of the local New Testament era congregations did not possess sufficient priesthood authority of their own to lead, guide and operate the Churches they were called to serve. If you got that impression, you misconstrued what I said and I would appreciate it if you would point to the specific line (or lines) where you got that incorrect impression.

Well, now you see just how easy it is to give Daniel the wrong impression.

So, where lies the problem? With you (and me) or with Daniel?

[Vance]

say what?

 

Mark was written by an associate of Peter

Luke and Acts written by an associate of Paul

Matthew was probably written by an anonymous Jewish Christian (A.D. 60-85)

2^nd and 3^rd John were written by the presbyter, which may or may not have been John, (A.D. 45-130)

Who wrote Hebrews?

Who wrote Titus and 1 & 2 Timothy? Scholars are fairly unanimous that it wasn’t Paul. 

Etc.

And, pray tell, how many of those were reproving/correcting local congregations?