Elements Of The True Church?

[MiserereNobis]

If your point was correct, then it would be the Orthodox church that is the true church. Since even catholics don't agree with that, then they only prove the point there is no "true church organization."

 

You need to study your history if you think Orthodoxy pre-dates Catholicism.  We were one Church until the East-West schism.  In some ways we still are -- we both recognize the validity of the other's sacraments and Apostolic succession. 

 

Even if you go back to the schism that created Oriental Orthodoxy, you're at the year 451 and dealing with an Ecumenical Council, which definitely shows that both sides believed they had the truth.

 

Also, a disagreement over which Church is the "true" Church does not mean there isn't one.

 

Is this principle found in the Bible or, again, is this a man-made construct?

 

The compilation of the Bible is a "man-made construct" by the bishops of the Catholic Church.  Had there been no Church, there would have been no Bible.  The Church guided the compilation of the Bible (see the Synods of Hippo and Carthage).  Your question is begging the question

 

Out of curiosity, at what point do you think the early Christians went wrong in following a hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons? 1st century? 2nd?  What about the Council of Jerusalem?  Doesn't that show a Church hierarchy at work?  Where do you place our apostasy?

.

Edited April 30, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[pogi]

I'd be curious to see any writings  of Luther or Calvin that espouse a one true church. I don't think there are any.

 

Well, there is one thing they would agree on - The apostasy, so they obviously believed in false churches and religion.

 

They did believe in a true church, but simply felt that it had fallen away, so they attempted to "reform" the true Church of Christ according to the teachings in the Bible.  Unfortunately, nobody could agree on what the Bible meant.  The true church was the one that best fit your understanding of the Bible. 

[danielwoods]

You need to study your history if you think Orthodoxy pre-dates Catholicism.  We were one Church until the East-West schism.  In some ways we still are -- we both recognize the validity of the other's sacraments and Apostolic succession. 

 

Even if you go back to the schism that created Oriental Orthodoxy, you're at the year 451 and dealing with an Ecumenical Council, which definitely shows that both sides believed they had the truth.

 

Also, a disagreement over which Church is the "true" Church does not mean there isn't one.

.

 

I agree, I need to study history more. So, thank you for setting me straight on that. 

 

However, the point I also made was that Jesus didn't come to set up a church (as in an organization), if he had he would have made that a priority. 

 

The current thinking that there is a "true church" is similar to Peter's attitude before Acts 10. 

[mfbukowski]

Is this principle found in the Bible or, again, is this a man-made construct?

Do you have any concept where the bible came from?

 

Do you think it fell from heaven?  The bible is a man made construct.

[mfbukowski]

You need to study your history if you think Orthodoxy pre-dates Catholicism.  We were one Church until the East-West schism.  In some ways we still are -- we both recognize the validity of the other's sacraments and Apostolic succession. 

 

Even if you go back to the schism that created Oriental Orthodoxy, you're at the year 451 and dealing with an Ecumenical Council, which definitely shows that both sides believed they had the truth.

 

Also, a disagreement over which Church is the "true" Church does not mean there isn't one.

 

 

The compilation of the Bible is a "man-made construct" by the bishops of the Catholic Church.  Had there been no Church, there would have been no Bible.  The Church guided the compilation of the Bible (see the Synods of Hippo and Carthage).  Your question is begging the question

 

Out of curiosity, at what point do you think the early Christians went wrong in following a hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons? 1st century? 2nd?  What about the Council of Jerusalem?  Doesn't that show a Church hierarchy at work?  Where do you place our apostasy?

.

You are so much nicer than I am!

I really should leave.  I get too frustrated.

[teddyaware]

I agree, I need to study history more. So, thank you for setting me straight on that. 

 

However, the point I also made was that Jesus didn't come to set up a church (as in an organization), if he had he would have made that a priority. 

 

The current thinking that there is a "true church" is similar to Peter's attitude before Acts 10.

I just read 1 Corinthians 12 and it's very hard to imagine Paul is advocating for anything other than a single cohesive Church organization. His usage of the mutually dependent members of the human body as an analogy for the body of the Church argues powerfully for a single Church. After all, why would he choose to use a single human body to demonstrate the unity of the Church if he meant to convey something otherwise. I believe you are forced into interpretations that are far afield of Paul's obviously intended meaning because you have no other choice but to do so, seeing you reject the idea of an organized Church with a duly ordained central authority. See for yourself...

12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

14 For the body is not one member, but many.

15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?

20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.

21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the ahead to the feet, I have no need of you.

22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:

23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:

25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

 

To imagine he's speaking of anything other than a single centralized organization strains the meaning of Paul's words. If the Church of Christ wasn't meant to be a single organized entity, why did the Apostles fill the vacancy in the quorum of the Twelve Apostles left by the death and apostasy of Judas? It's obvious the Apostles felt they had an obligation to perpetuate the original organization and leadership structure of the Church as established by Christ; and Peter took the initiative to do just that when he used the power of the keys of the kingdom, given to him by Christ Himself, to see to it that the Church organization as established by the Saviour continued.

15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he aburst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1)

 

During the earliest days of the post-ascension Church of Christ, it's obvious the leaders of the Church were Peter and the other Apostles. 

Edited May 1, 2014 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

"Gospel" is usually taken to mean "good news" but it can just as easily be understood as "God play" (as in drama) or God story.  The old English "spel " is related to the German "Spiele" which means "play" both in the sense of a child's game, or a dramatic presentation of a story.

 

The book of Job is widely regarded as a temple drama and I think many of the bible stories are in the same category.

[danielwoods]

I just read 1 Corinthians 12 and it's very hard to imagine Paul is advocating for anything other than a single cohesive Church organization. His usage of the of the mutually dependent members of the human body as an analogy for the body of the Church argues powerfully for a single Church. After all, why would he choose to use a single human body to demonstrate the unity of the Church if he meant to convey something otherwise. I believe you are forced into interpretations that are far afield of Paul's obviously intended meaning because you have no other choice but to do so, seeing you reject the idea of an organized Church with a duly ordained central authority. See for yourself...

12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

14 For the body is not one member, but many.

15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?

20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.

21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the ahead to the feet, I have no need of you.

22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:

23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:

25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

 

To imagine he's speaking of anything other than a single centralized organization strains the meaning of Paul's words. If the Church of Christ wasn't meant to be a single organized entity, why did the Apostles fill the vacancy in the quorum of the Twelve Apostles left by the death and apostasy of Judas? It's obvious the Apostles felt they had an obligation to perpetuate the original organization and leadership structure of the Church as established by Christ; and Peter took the initiative to do just that when he used the power of the keys of the kingdom, given to him by Christ Himself, to see to it that the Church organization as established by the Saviour continued.

15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he aburst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1)

 

During the earliest days of the post-ascension Church of Christ, it's obvious the leaders of the Church were Peter and the other Apostles. 

 

"Peter took the initiative to do just that when he used the power of the keys of the kingdom, given to him by Christ Himself, to see to it that the Church organization as established by the Saviour continued."

 

This statement is false. It was the Head of the Church, Christ himself, that saw to it that his church was established, and grew. Peter was simply the person Christ used at that time. 

 

I agree that Peter and the other Apostles were leaders. I disagree that the church was intended to be limited to only that church in one geographic area. Or that somehow that centralized church was to be seen as the one true organization to which all others would submit to.

 

"To his own master he stands or falls...." Our only master is Christ alone. 

Edited May 1, 2014 by danielwoods

[cdowis]

You need to study your history if you think Orthodoxy pre-dates Catholicism.  We were one Church until the East-West schism.  In some ways we still are -- we both recognize the validity of the other's sacraments and Apostolic succession. 

 

 

.

 

Help me understand.

 

Are you saying that  the Pope's claim to jurisdiction was universally accepted prior to the schism?  In the Council of Nicea, for example, I see no evidence that claim was accepted by the Christian leaders.  His voice (the voice of his representative) was merely one of many voices, and not viewed as authoritative on the most significant doctrinal issue of the time.

Edited May 1, 2014 by cdowis

[Vance]

Why did he keep choosing to say, instead, unity of the Spirit?

He didn’t! He only used that phrase ONCE! And, as far as I can find, he only used the word “unity” twice. Eph 4:3 and again in 13.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Vance

[Vance]

The Bible is clear that there is one God, a Savior, his claim of Truth, and his promise of salvation. I don't think it's clear that there is one true church.

The Bible basically claims there is a,

True Light,

True God,

True worshippers,

True sayings,

True witness,

True bread,

True record,

True vine,

True testimony,

True holiness,

True yokefellow,

True things,

True tabernacle,

True heart,

True grace,

True proverb,

True Lord,

True ways,

True judgments,

True words.

It is bizarre to me that with all of those, one could still deny the existence of a “true” Church.

 

There is a Church universal but I don't see how a one true church concept fits into this hierarchy.

Where in the Bible does it say there is a “Church universal”? It is interesting that out of one side of your mouth you condemn the concept of a “true Church” because you can’t find that phrase in the Bible, and out of the other side of your mouth you claim there is a “Church universal”. Edited May 1, 2014 by Vance

[Vance]

It makes no sense to be critical of our churches while thinking everyone has equal authority.

I don't get it either.

If everyone has equal authority, or as many have claimed, you get authority from the Bible, HOW can they claim ANY kind of exclusivity at all?

It just makes NO sense.

[Vance]

Problem is Jesus never claimed to establish an organization. The NT was written in the 1st century, with the Book of Luke and Acts completed before AD 70. And In that time there was no monolithic organization one had to have membership in in order to be saved.

When I study the New Testament I come away with the opposite conclusion. To me it is obvious that there was a central authority that acted over all of the "churches" through out the world at that time. 

 

If your point was correct, then it would be the Orthodox church that is the true church.

You are precluding the possibility of loss of authority PRIOR to the division.

[Gervin]

Do you have any concept where the bible came from?

 

Do you think it fell from heaven?  The bible is a man made construct.

Yes, I have a concept of where the Bible came from.  I was asking about the phrase "one true church" - and its origin.  Lot's of talk, but no response.

[mfbukowski]

Yes, I have a concept of where the Bible came from.  I was asking about the phrase "one true church" - and its origin.  Lot's of talk, but no response.

This entire thread is a response. If you do not understand what has been said, that is another matter.

No, those words are not in the bible. So what?

[mfbukowski]

When I study the New Testament I come away with the opposite conclusion. To me it is obvious that there was a central authority that acted over all of the "churches" through out the world at that time.

That is evident in the Book of Revelation. Christ as the authority is reprimanding the "churches" for what they are doing wrong.

Perhaps I am incorrect here, but the belief is that the last surviving apostle, John, wrote that as a revelation while in exile on Patmos- as the last surviving one with authority, 30 years after Peter died

[Vance]

That is evident in the Book of Revelation. Christ as the authority is reprimanding the "churches" for what they are doing wrong.

Perhaps I am incorrect here, but the belief is that the last surviving apostle, John, wrote that as a revelation while in exile on Patmos- as the last surviving one with authority, 30 years after Peter died

I guess it is the same old saw. If they don't want to see it, then they won't!! (Even if it is there).

[danielwoods]

When I study the New Testament I come away with the opposite conclusion. To me it is obvious that there was a central authority that acted over all of the "churches" through out the world at that time. 

 

You are precluding the possibility of loss of authority PRIOR to the division.

 

You won't find the phrase, "take it to the church to decide." Rather Paul admonishes those to deal directly with people, "hand them over to the devil." so to speak. If Christ was setting up an "Top down" system, we would see evidence to that effect. 

 

Rather, we see Christ speaking directly to people, churches and that connection is real and mystical at the same time. "To his own master he stands or falls..." 

[danielwoods]

That is evident in the Book of Revelation. Christ as the authority is reprimanding the "churches" for what they are doing wrong.

Perhaps I am incorrect here, but the belief is that the last surviving apostle, John, wrote that as a revelation while in exile on Patmos- as the last surviving one with authority, 30 years after Peter died

 

Notice the words though to the church of Thyatira:

 

"²⁰ Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. ²¹ I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. ²² So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. ²³ I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds."

 

 

Notice it doesn't say, "my authority, John... will do this and that..." nope. It states very clearly, "I [Jesus] will... " do this or that... 

 

To his own master he stands or falls. We have only one master. Jesus. 

[Vance]

You won't find the phrase, "take it to the church to decide."

Yet Paul took the problem of circumcision to the "Church" (led by the Apostles in Jerusalem) to decide how "the Church" would respond.

 

Rather Paul admonishes those to deal directly with people, "hand them over to the devil." so to speak. If Christ was setting up an "Top down" system, we would see evidence to that effect.

NOT if you don't want to see it. 

 

Rather, we see Christ speaking directly to people, churches and that connection is real and mystical at the same time. "To his own master he stands or falls..."

So, then the epistles from the Apostles are useless, because they have no more authority than the words of any other believer. You are shooting your self in the foot here. Edited May 2, 2014 by Vance

[Vance]

Notice the words though to the church of Thyatira:

 

"²⁰ Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. ²¹ I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. ²² So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. ²³ I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds."

 

 

Notice it doesn't say, "my authority, John... will do this and that..." nope. It states very clearly, "I [Jesus] will... " do this or that... 

 

To his own master he stands or falls. We have only one master. Jesus.

And yet Jesus himself told us what he would do.

Luke 11:49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:

Matt 23:34 ¶ Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

[teddyaware]

Notice the words though to the church of Thyatira:

 

"²⁰ Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. ²¹ I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. ²² So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. ²³ I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds."

 

 

Notice it doesn't say, "my authority, John... will do this and that..." nope. It states very clearly, "I [Jesus] will... " do this or that... 

 

To his own master he stands or falls. We have only one master. Jesus.

It is utterly astonishing to me that you seem to miss the very obvious point that the only reason why we know anything that the Lord had to say, in this instance, is because His words were given to us by a Prophet of God named John. Don't you get it? Apostles and Prophets don't speak for themselves, they speak and disseminate the word of the Lord to the congregations of the Church. Don't you see you wouldn't have these words of Jesus if it weren't for the Apostle John who was one of the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ?

 

You act as if Jesus came down from heaven, called a worldwide press conference, and arranged to have television and radio stations from around the world there to broadcast the live media event... It was John, not Jesus, who gave these words of Christ to the world. The revelation was given to John and he, in turn, gave the words of the Lord to us. In other words, generally speaking, the words of Christ are given to the world through duly ordained and empowered Apostles and Prophets. This is how God chooses to run his Church. Read for yourself:

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

4 John (not Jesus) to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; (Revelation 1)

9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

10 I (John) was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. (Revelation 1)

17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter; (Revelation 1)

Edited May 1, 2014 by teddyaware

[3DOP]

"Peter took the initiative to do just that when he used the power of the keys of the kingdom, given to him by Christ Himself, to see to it that the Church organization as established by the Saviour continued."

 

This statement is false. It was the Head of the Church, Christ himself, that saw to it that his church was established, and grew. Peter was simply the person Christ used at that time. 

 

I agree that Peter and the other Apostles were leaders. I disagree that the church was intended to be limited to only that church in one geographic area. Or that somehow that centralized church was to be seen as the one true organization to which all others would submit to.

 

"To his own master he stands or falls...." Our only master is Christ alone. 

 

Hi Daniel.

 

I find church discipline, as it is mentioned in Scripture, to indicate that we are forced to identify human authority that is presumably approved by God. The fact of church discipline, which is not practical if as soon as one is disciplined, the believer can just go running off to another church, played a large part in my conversion from an invisible church guy (Baptist minister), to a one true church guy, and finally to a Catholic. It took years. Nobody changes in a day.

 

I guess one can apply this to an individual church, but I tend to think it implies that God's ministers all cooperate together. They abide by the same laws and recognize each other's sacraments/ordinances. They honor the disciplinary actions of their fellow authorities/prelates/pastors. Of course we have to obey Jesus, as you said, but He is so closely identified with His Church that when He met Saul on the Damascus Road, he asked Saul, who had been persecuting the Church after Christ had ascended to the Father, "Why persecutest thou me?" Huh, Saul thinks? In addition to this pivotal moment of grace in the life of St. Paul and the Church, it was a theology lesson. Christ is the Head of the Mystical Body, His Church, and they are inseparable. If we persecute Christ's Church we persecute Christ and when we obey God's Church we are obeying Christ our Lord:

 

"Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation...Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you." (Hebrews 13:7, 17)

 

I am not trying to be argumentative danielwoods. I speak up because I was impressed with your willingness to concede to Miserere that maybe there was some history you didn't know. It seems like a good heart that admits a thing like that in a public forum. Without a one true Church concept, in my opinion, the Christian is in the dangerous position of finding the church that fits, and is more easily tempted to go somewhere else when he doesn't want to obey.

 

I'll give a practical contemporary problem. Some churches, maybe most, never make any inquiries regarding divorces and remarriage. My church had a little trouble when we concluded that we can't just accept every civil divorce and remarriage. But the "faithful" will just "go Henry VIII" on you and find some "church" that won't make a fuss about it. In my opinion, remarriage while the spouse lives seems too important to be decided "in the moment", when you want to marry, or you already have. What a fearful thing to open the Bible, in a time of passion when it is difficult to be recollected, with no human guidance at all, to find your way through knotty questions of very practical and often very personal significance. To obey Jesus we have to try to identify His prelates/pastors/overseers. I found I was hard put to see the kind of obedience spoken of in Hebrews 13 in the "invisible church made up of all regenerated believers". How do you obey who you can't see? Anyway, God bless you on your journey of faith.

 

Best,

 

Rory

Edited May 1, 2014 by 3DOP

[teddyaware]

"Peter took the initiative to do just that when he used the power of the keys of the kingdom, given to him by Christ Himself, to see to it that the Church organization as established by the Saviour continued."

 

This statement is false. It was the Head of the Church, Christ himself, that saw to it that his church was established, and grew. Peter was simply the person Christ used at that time. 

 

I agree that Peter and the other Apostles were leaders. I disagree that the church was intended to be limited to only that church in one geographic area. Or that somehow that centralized church was to be seen as the one true organization to which all others would submit to.

 

"To his own master he stands or falls...." Our only master is Christ alone. 

Daniel,

 

In the above post you once again seem to miss the obvious point. In the highlighted portion you say my statement about Peter is false because it's the Lord who runs his Church and not men (a point of doctrine which, by the way, Latter-day Saints believe to be true). But why did you not continue on in the narrative of Acts 1 which says that Christ revealed His will to the eleven Apostles by revelation. By this means (divine revelation) the Lord revealed to the eleven that Matthias was his choice to fill the vacancy left by the death of Judas. Observe how the Lord guided His Apostolic Church by giving heavenly revelation to the Apostles who stood at the head of the Church:

24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1)

 

Again, the Lord is the head of the Church, but His chosen and duly authorized leaders learn and disseminate the Saviour's will by revelation from heaven.

Edited May 2, 2014 by teddyaware

[Gervin]

Out of curiosity, at what point do you think the early Christians went wrong in following a hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons? 1st century? 2nd?  What about the Council of Jerusalem?  Doesn't that show a Church hierarchy at work?  Where do you place our apostasy?

I'm not sure what you mean by "our apostasy" - I don't know your religion and/or the basis for which you assume that I believe in apostasy.

 

Re Christians who "went wrong in following a hierarchy" again, I'm not sure I know what you're speaking of.  As Karl Kertelge and Wayne Meeks have pointed out, church roles did not become fully institutionalized until the turn of the century as shown in the letter of Clement to Rome, letters of Ignatius, etc.  The Book of Acts and the Pauline letters make no mention of formal offices in the early Pauline congregations.