1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting after you have posted 20 posts and have received 5 likes.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

  2. Verse of the Week - Romans 8:28

    And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

    Discuss Just Click Here
  3. Faith Options in Your User Profile
    Please click on the following regarding this important notice in Announcements:

    Faith Options in Your User Profile.

Jesus didn't institute a church

Discussion in 'Ecclesiology' started by Uphill Battle, Feb 25, 2007.

  1. NewToLife

    NewToLife Senior Veteran

    Messages:
    3,043
    Likes Received:
    110
    Faith:
    Eastern-Orthodox
    With this I realise that you really dont know much about the Orthodox Church. As such its probably wiser to withhold comment.

    The only worldwide denomination that could make the claim with any credibility at all would be Catholicism.

    You content that the prsence of Tares in the Wheat is evidence that the Church is not the Church? I dont think that is much of a case really. As for the catholic Church their position is actually somewhat different in reality.They willingly admit that they develop doctrine over time and accuse us of stagnation because they recognise that we dont. By their own words it's we who do not change, and from a Catholic standpoint that is a problem, from mine its evidence of continuance of unity.
     
  2. TheDag

    TheDag I don't like titles

    Messages:
    8,914
    Likes Received:
    6
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Christian
    I was simply pointing out that people don't believe something simply because they are told to. I was not commenting on how those views came to be.

    That is your opinion. Catholics can't make that claim as there are alot of priests I've come across who don't agree with all of the churches teaching. That shows there is not unity of belief. Also let me make this clear. I do not want you to respond by questioning the salvation of people by bringing up the tares in the wheat comment. I actually only know of one denomination where the beliefs are agreed on. The reason for this is because the only beliefs they worry about are ones essential to being a christian. Of course all denominations I've been involved in actually agree with these beliefs but like to get focusedon the differences rather than what they have in common.

    I made no such contention at all. I am simply pointing out that all these claims which you make about other denominations happens in the orthodox church. The only difference is you say it is something different and not as bad when it happens in your denomination.


    This statement could be interpreted in a way that is clearly not the actual catholic viewpoint. You may not have meant it that way but it isn't clear.
     
  3. xristos.anesti

    xristos.anesti Veteran

    Messages:
    1,711
    Likes Received:
    92
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Atheist
    I see your point and to the extent of what you said I agree. However, I would like if you could understand that I do not see the Sola Scriptura as it is practiced (visibly in this world) to be a true way to go, for there is no way to confirm who is really right, for in explanation and all the search it (seems) that it is always "me" who is the authority. It is "I" who is the final authority.

    I have no problem with the definitions of Sola Scriptura as it is explained by some Lutherans, it seem that whole of fathers indeed practiced that way - never called it that way however. Nevertheless, regardless of the definitions, the practice as it is exercised does not have validity as the carrier of science of faith is not an individual but the Church. It is the duty of an individual to conform to this authority of the Church.

    The whole body of Tradition (extra Scriptural) is in reality the experience of the Church when it comes to word of God and whole revelation of God being what was given to us - for our salvation.

    At the same token, comparing to what you said, one can not raise his/her own opinion above that of the Church - and here is where my objection to Sola Scriptura (as it is exercised) lies - it is highly subjective, thus prone to create confusion.

    Many years.
     
  4. NewToLife

    NewToLife Senior Veteran

    Messages:
    3,043
    Likes Received:
    110
    Faith:
    Eastern-Orthodox
    I cant see much point is continuing the exchange beyond noting that this is precisely the kind of unity that I would not consider to be any real unity at all, it seems to me to simply be a fudge to avoid facing the fact that there are in fact disagreements ( which may well be serious depending on what they have determined is actually essential or not ).
     
  5. TheDag

    TheDag I don't like titles

    Messages:
    8,914
    Likes Received:
    6
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Christian
    I can understand your point here but I would also say the church can be wrong. The selling of indulgences for sin by the church was a very widespread and common practice over many centuries not just when Luther started his little rant. These were practices endorsed by church hierarchy. So we do need a balance. We can't just automatically accept what the church says as it may be telling us the wrong thing but that doesn't make us the authority either.
     
  6. StevenL

    StevenL Veteran

    Messages:
    1,904
    Likes Received:
    67
    Faith:
    Christian
    Good OP. The word "church" should never have been used for the word ekklesia. The word means 'called-out'. Assembly is better than church. They got it right in Acts 19:41. Sure would have made it easier had they just translated ekklesia into the well-known meaning of the word. But...somebody had an agenda.
     
  7. xristos.anesti

    xristos.anesti Veteran

    Messages:
    1,711
    Likes Received:
    92
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Atheist
    And you know this based on your exceptional understanding of Hellenic language?

    Many years.
     
  8. xristos.anesti

    xristos.anesti Veteran

    Messages:
    1,711
    Likes Received:
    92
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Atheist
    :) Indulgences?! What are those?

    Seriously, I am not a Latin, why do you use sins of the west on west to talk about the Church to someone from the east - Anyway, if you wish to talk about it - for the record - we said what we thought of Rome 500 years before indulgences and issues associated with - that is, before Reformation, welcome to the club. :)

    Είς μίαν, αγίαν, καθολικήν καί αποστολικήν Έκκλησίαν.

    I agree with what you say - understanding your position and understanding of the Church - however, that is not what I am talking about - the Greek words above do not speak of Rome - have not since at least 1054 or in particular since council of Florence.

    Many years.
     
  9. Dorothea

    Dorothea One of God's handmaidens

    Messages:
    20,248
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Female
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Eastern-Orthodox
    xristos, your posts are brilliant! I have been enjoying reading these discussions in this thread. Very respectful and highly educational. Thank you all. :)
     
  10. IamAdopted

    IamAdopted New Member

    Messages:
    9,360
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Christian
    Jesus instituted a people. For it is each individual person that Has the Spirit of Chirst that make up the church. Scripture says that the church is made up of living stones and Him being the Chief cornerstone. Each stone is each individual person. For Christ people are His temple..
     
  11. TheDag

    TheDag I don't like titles

    Messages:
    8,914
    Likes Received:
    6
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Christian
    I mention it to show that one can not always trust the church to do the right thing. While it is important to listen to what the church has to say one must also check that what they are saying is correct. Some of your previous posts seem to suggest that the church could never be wrong. That is why I mention this. I find your use of the words east and west interesting. Why is it that you use them?
     
  12. StevenL

    StevenL Veteran

    Messages:
    1,904
    Likes Received:
    67
    Faith:
    Christian
    Yes I know this.
     
  13. xristos.anesti

    xristos.anesti Veteran

    Messages:
    1,711
    Likes Received:
    92
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Atheist
    Many years,

    Some of my previous posts did suggest that the Church can not be wrong - however you have to realise that I am not speaking of what the common idea of the Church is - in the West.

    In the Christian West the idea in regard to the Church has been motivated and formed, then re-formed and re-motivated by a very "acatholic" (non-catholic) movements.

    It is hard for me to explain this without writing an assignment - however it is a very interesting topic to me so I'll try to explain without going into a length that this topic deserves.

    As far as the Eastern part of the Church is concerned - to us, what happened in the West with the birth, evolution and coming of age of Papal supremacy and everything that happened since is one long line of bad interpretations, ideas, teachings - this includes Protestantism.

    That cult of personal opinion started with some of the earlier bishops of Rome - nothing as viscous as what the Evangelicals teach - but, there was a tendency in Rome to see itself as a Chief ruler. East does give honour to Rome acknowledging it for what it is (was) Primus inter pares - first among equals.

    In the old order of things there are five Apostolic and ecumenical sees of the Christendom - Rome, New Rome (Constantinople), Alexandria, Antioch and Mother of the Churches - Jerusalem.

    Now, you will notice that the only apostolic see of the West is Rome – all others are in the East. When the Rome started exercising her power of the Patriarch of the West, East did not really mind – for it was the only Apostolic see in that part of the Empire. However, every time Rome wanted to breach the order and force herself upon the rest – Rome was gently reminded of her place and prerogatives of honour (and not power). There was a tendency of Rome to use something called the Petrine supremacy – that is teaching that because St. Peter was the chief apostle – bishop of Rome shall be a chief bishop.

    The real problem with all this is that Western part of the Church communicated with the East – through Rome. All ideas that the East had were interpreted and communicated to the West – through the Rome. Without going into the history of the Church and all the interpretations of “Petrine Supremacy”, position of the bishop of Rome and why Rome was Rome etc. one has to note that what Protestants fought against – was not the Catholic Church – but rather church of Rome.

    Rome is “acatholic”! Term Catholic – so hated by the majority of the Protestants – comes from Greek word καθολικός (according to the whole). What the Protestants fought against was “catromanic” church (according to the Rome). The WHOLE includes New Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem – something Rome did not voice often since 1054. Rome is not the WHOLE – some would like to say so – but they are somewhat wrong – very wrong. Rome is not the WHOLE – Rome is… well, Rome.
    The whole of Protestants reformation fought against the idea – the incorrect idea – perpetrated upon the West that Rome is the Church. All of the spurious and ideas that Protestants fought against that came from Rome – came from non-catholic Rome – Rome that was not one of the five – but one of itself.

    To us in the East – it is the same if person says: I am infallible! We see it as wrong. To us it does not matter as to the name of the person – whether it is the pope of Rome or some evangelical from Arizona. They are both wrong. For not one person is infallible – the Church of Christ lead by the Holy Spirit is infallible – people can be – and often are – wrong.

    So, the West has two ways. One in which millions will disregard their own opinions to listen to an opinion of One person – sitting in Rome, and millions of those who disregarded and protested against that One person – only to start listening to another One person – themselves.

    It is all same to us – in the East – you are all “acatholic” – for whether it is an opinion of John Paul II or John Smith – it is an opinion that is not according to the whole.

    This is why I use distinction between East and West.

    East never had reformation – why would we? We are decentrilised democracy lead by the local bishop who is in communion with all other Orthodox bishops out of love and correct teaching – this is the Orthodox faith and not what was cooked up in Rome some centuries ago.

    If you read the Church history you will find better explanations, but – when you meet and talk to an Orthodox – you have to realise, and all Protestants with you – we are not like Romans. We are out of Western time – to us, you are both equally non-catholic – for you have both forgotten and disregarded what is according to the whole.

    So, when I speak of Church being right - I speak of the Church that doesn't have much in common with what you - people of the West - consider to be a Church.





    I hope this helps.
     
  14. Rightglory

    Rightglory Guest

    xristos.anesti,

    The explanation you give of the Church in post #73 is probably one of the best in that it is much easier for a protestant to understand the differences that form the meaning of Church from east to west. Giving the theological eqivalent just baffles most of them. They are oriented to organizational structures rather than ontological.
     
  15. Dorothea

    Dorothea One of God's handmaidens

    Messages:
    20,248
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Female
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Eastern-Orthodox
    Excellent post!
     
  16. MoNiCa4316

    MoNiCa4316 Totus Tuus

    Messages:
    18,095
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Catholic
    :amen:

    For me it's quite simple..if you believe in Christ, you're His child, and that means you're also in the Church...His Body and Bride. You can't be in Christ but not be in the Church. He is the Head and He - not doctrine - holds it together. Of course it is important to preserve the correct teachings, and that is what the Bible is for..and the Holy Spirit guides us in our understanding, for real wisdom comes from Him.
    And I agree with what you said about 'Ekklesia'.
     
    thrufaithalone likes this.
  17. thrufaithalone

    thrufaithalone New Member

    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Christian
    Since there are tares growing with the wheat, no one knows who is a Christian; every congregation has true and false believers.
    Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world." The Church or assembly Jesus was refering to was the final assembly of all true believers at the end of the age - the Church revealed in the book of Revelation.
     
  18. mont974x4

    mont974x4 The Christian Anarchist Supporter

    Messages:
    17,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Libertarian
    Faith:
    Christian
    Amen! He freed us from legalistic religion and welcomed us into His family, true relationships with Him and with His children.


    Why so many people seem so intent on placing people back into such bondage I can not understand.
     
  19. JoabAnias

    JoabAnias Steward of proportionality- I Cor 13:1, 1 Tim 3:15 Supporter

    Messages:
    21,032
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Catholic
    Not really when one understands the meaning and history of the word Church in definition and patristic writings.


    The faithful of the whole world. This broad definition can be understood in various senses all derived from the Scriptures, notably as the community of believers, the kingdom of God, and the Mystical Body of Christ.

    As the community of believers, the Church is the assembly (ekklesia) of all who believe in Jesus Christ; or the fellowship (koinonia) of all who are bound together by their common love for the Savior. As the kingdom (basileia), it is the fulfillment of the ancient prophecies about the reign of the Messiah. And as the Mystical Body it is the communion of all those made holy by the grace of Christ. He is their invisible head and they are his visible members. These include the faithful on earth and the saints in heaven.
    ....
    At the Second Vatican Council this concept of the Church was recognized as the objective reality that identifies the fullness of the Roman Catholic Church. But it was qualified subjectively so as to somehow include all who are baptized and profess their faith in Jesus Christ. They are the People of God, whom he has chosen to be his own and on whom he bestows the special graces of his providence. (Etym. Greek kkyriakon, church; from kyriakos, belonging to the Lord.)
    :crossrc:
     
  20. Tdigaetano

    Tdigaetano Regular Member

    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Catholic
    The Catholic Church through out the ages has been a pillar of the truth and the light to many. From the time Rome converted to Christianity till the protestant reformation, The Catholic Church was the largest institute in the entire world, sure some people desired more earthly treasures and tried to scam people but the truth the church taught was never affected just people not practicing what they believe. The simple monks and lay man would live happy productive lives for God. Monks would go around and preach the word, heal the sick, establish unity amongst a people to work and be productive for God. Life was good for over a 1000 years for Catholics as long as you wern't a King or a Bishop.

    When the Reformation occured a secular power vacuum came in and drained the physical presence of the Church, established "Freedom of religion" but refused to let the Catholic church appoint bishops to a region. Kings offering Land to people to convert away from the Church.

    The Poor turning away from God because they could improve the quality of their life and obtain worldly riches by commiting sin and dening the church.

    But now that the shade of grey that confused people before has calmed down people from both inside the church and outside the church see a problem with society and the direction we are heading. Some people are still seeing grey from both inside and outside of the church and accept ungodly practices.

    The church for the last 500 years has been working hard to stop this infestation of secular modern ideology from infiltrating and corrupting the church.

    That is why in this day and age it is very important to understand what the church Teaches not taking stuff out of context but truly trying to understand the full deposit of the truth we hold. Look passed what men of the church do but listen to what the Church holds true.
     
    JoabAnias likes this.
Loading...