CJ,
It is obvious to me we are talking past each other and, unless we head into a new direction, may soon hit the point of diminishing returns. However...I will make one more stab at it...
... as far as I know from history or Scripture, there was no institutional denomination (RCC or otherwise) for some 300 years.
Here is an example of us talking past each other.
You speak of "institutional" and "denomination". Let's chat about about each of these one at a time.
Regarding "institutional":
You make what is to me a stunning and baseless claim: that there was no "institutional" aspect to the very early Church...whereas I would claim that the institutional aspect has always existed since the very beginning (which is probably a stunning and baseless claim from your POV).
Let's step back a moment and define our terms here. When I use the term "institution" - what exactly do you think I mean by that? I suspect we are defining the term differently, and then are getting frustrated with each other because we are talking past each other.
As for me, it CAN mean something very formal and legal...like a BANK, for example. When we speak of "financial
institutions" we have images of these solid buildings made of granite with button-down conservative guys in suits going about their business with tons of rules, regulations, and ledger sheets. This is the stereotype image the term "financial institution" evokes.
But is that the only way we can use the word "institution", in the same sense that we would refer to a bank?
No.
Is that the way I am using the word?
Waaaay no.
There are other senses of the word. I don't always like to use Webster's to define terms we use in *theological* discussions...but in this case I think it will be helpful. Here is their definition of "institution":
a significant practice, relationship, or organization in a society or culture <the institution of marriage> ; also : something or someone firmly associated with a place or thing <she has become an institution in the theater> b: an established organization or corporation (as a bank or university) especially of a public character
So was the Christian Church in the Apostolic era and beyond (before 300 AD) a "significant practice, relationship, or organization in a society or culture"? I dare you to say "no." Of course it was significant (in many ways) as a practice, and as a relationship, and as an organization. If it was...then the Christian Church was an "institution" from the very beginning - even if it lacked large granite buildings with folks in business suits and ledger sheets. It needn't be a LEGALLY recognized entity complete with permanent physical locations for it to be an institution.
Was it "an established organization"? Well...2,000 years later we can safely say "yes" - UNLESS you want to argue that the Christian Church was not organized (which begs the question why they made such a big deal about laying on hands and obeying elders and things like that if there was no real organization or structure) - but it is certainly true that Christianity became "established" from Pentecost onward.
And was Christianity prior to 300 AD "of a public character"? Well - yes and no. While it existed for the most part as an illegal and underground organization (and so in that sense it operated somewhat under the legal radar screen, or at least tried to when necessary), by the same token its mission could not have been more of a public character. After all, if you want to "teach the nations" that sounds pretty public to me.
Was it a "corporation" or some kind of a legally recognized entity? No.
So the bottom line here is that, for me, the early Church was (and still is) an
institution in nearly every sense of the definition except the legal corporation type of institution (like a bank).
But if someone wants to define the word using a strict, narrow, legalistic sense, like a corporation or a bank, then "no" - the Church was not a LEGALLY recognized organization until after 300 AD.
How do YOU define the term? How do you think I WAS defining the term in my previous posts?
Until we understand how we are using our words, we will talk past each other.
Regarding "denomination":
How are you defining "denomination"?
Let's say for argument's sake we overcome our difficulty with defining "institution" - and we can agree that given what I stated above that the Christian Church was, in a certain sense, an "institution" (even though it was illegal and underground).
How, then, would such an "institution" be considered a "denomination"? If it is ONE institution, can it be a denomination? If non-heretical schismatics break off and form their own independent institution, does that make both institutions "denominations" - or is only the schismatic second one a denomination? What about if a heretical movement breaks away from the institution we will generically call "the Christian Church" and starts their own institution which decidedly contradicts the original Christian institution (for example, the Mormons of today - or Arians back in ancient times)...and if they (the heretics) call themselves "Christian" even though they contradict orthodoxy...do we call BOTH institutions by the word "denomination" or one of them, or neither of them?
Where are you coming from?
For us, the Church Christ founded was ONE and it was (and is) a universal institution. A "denomination" is seen by us as something broken away and apart from the whole. To us, the word denotes a sect or something divided from the original whole. Furthermore, the Bible strictly warns us against sectarianism, division, and - by extension - denominationalism (cf. Rom 16:17, 1 Cor 1:10-13, 1 Cor 3:3, 1 Cor 11:18-19, 1 Cor 12:25, Rom 13:13, 2 Cor 12:20, Phil 2:2, Titus 3:9, Jas 3:16, 1 Tim:3-5, and 2 Pet 2:1).
Therefore, for us, that ONE insitution founded by Christ is still there. It still exists (as Christ promised it would) - and its God-given Divine mission is to teach the nations Truthfully (without error) while remaining united. One. Holy. Catholic (or Universal - take your pick). Apostolic.
Of course, we also believe that the Catholic Church is that same Church - but we can leave that aside for the moment. We don't need to be sidetracked by that discussion for the time being.
So IF the Christian Church existed prior to 300 AD as a divinely instituted organization - an institution (however loosely that might be define from a legalistic standpoint) - and if its Four Marks (One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic) remained intact and was not corrupted with error (which is a whole other discussion, of course)...on what basis can we call THAT institution a "denomination"? Can there be a denomination of one? We would say "no" to that question.
When you make the comment that "there was no institutional denomination for some 300 years"...well...given our definitions (which you are obviously not using) the comment doesn't make sense to us since the Church was an institution from the beginning - plus there were no "denominations" for some 1500 years - not 300 years. To us, the Church's mere legalization by the Roman Empire in the early 300s did not make it an institution - nor did it make the Church a denomination. All that it did was to make it a legally recognized institution instead of an illegal underground institution.
There were no such things as "denominations" until the Protestant Reformation. Denominationalism is your tradition and your heritage - not ours.
But, yes, there was the one holy catholic church/ the communion of saints/ the mystical union of all believers.
Right - but there was ALSO a STRUCTURE and a hierarchy (it's a "both/and" not an "either/or"). A believer was not free just to "split off" a new church and thumb their noses at the hierarchy. If they did that - they would have been considered schimatics at best and heretics at worst. But they will have put themselves outside of the One Church founded by Christ on the Apostles. And that institutional structure started IMMEDIATELY. It didn't wait 300 years.
The union was (and is) one of faith in Christ (add, if you like, blessed by Baptism), not because all were formally registered in congregations legally associated with a single denomination (by any name).
Formally registered? Legally associated? How legalistic can you get? Just because the NT Church did not have formal enrollment and was not listed as a 501c non-profit organization does not mean they there wasn't a real authoritative structure, complete with a hierarchy. You don't need legalities and formal enrollments to exist as a Church with an institutional aspect and a mystical aspect.
[Paul to Titus] "Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you." Titus 2:15 (ESV)
All authority. But Titus wasn't an apostle; he was a bishop. So there it is: a bishop holds authority from the apostles. And so the missing puzzle piece falls into place. There was an institutional structure with AUTHORITY and a hierarchy. It's in the Bible - way before 300 AD.
Yes, we were (and still are) under the one Shepherd - Jesus Christ, who is, was and always will be Lord of the Church.
Of course Christ is the Shepherd, and He passed that role along to Peter:
A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." John 21:16
Peter (and the Pope) is a shepherd ONLY because THAT is what Jesus made him. All power and authority comes from Christ alone to carry on His Incarnational ministry on earth until His return in Glory.
Again you put things in a false either/or dichotomy as if either Jesus can be our Shephard or Peter, but not both.
... interesting how all discussions with Catholics very quickly boil down to the RCC's claims for the RCC....
Only because THAT is what you are insisting we talk about.
Me before in response to your comment that Christian people are the church catholic:
Yes - but again there was not division, sectarianism, or denominationalism either.
You:
... thanks for taking the Protestant position. But, I'm at a loss to know how it strengthens your arguement about the Catholic
denomination and it's Pope. Lost me, my respected friend....
I am not taking "the Protestant position." I am merely stating a fact. The Church we see in the New Testament lacks the division, sectarianism, and denominationalism we see today in the wake of the Protestant Reformation. The Bible LOUDLY condemns this. And I have no interest whatsoever in "strengthening" an argument in favor of a Catholic "denomination." The very word is insulting to me. If I wanted to belong to a sect or a denomination I would have remained Protestant.
I will comment more on the rest of your post 153 when I have more time.
God's Peace,
NewMan
Good idea, here is a starting point.
