A conversation about unity.

Carl Emerson said:

Were you not a believer before joining your present church ?

Click to expand...

For a while and then an atheist for a while.

PloverWing said:

Thank you for your thoughtful response (which I have not quoted here in full, merely to save space).

We are at an impasse. I am fully convinced that the visible, structural unity of the Church was torn in two at the Great Schism, and that no modern church is identical to the church of the first century.

Click to expand...

I do not think we should expect The church of today to be identical to The church of The 1st century. over 1000 years have passed Nearly 2000 and many changes are to be expected. we expect doctrine to grow to deepen to extend. we expect The church to grow and deepen and extend. and we expect The Holy Spirit to continue present in The Church, teaching maturing causing growth. so I think that it is a mistake to look back at The past as an ideal that we should seek to reproduce. The church has grown, it is irreversible.

PloverWing said:

You are (as I understand it) fully convinced that the church of the first century subsists fully in the Catholic church in a way that it does not subsist in the Orthodox churches. Neither of us is going to persuade the other in this thread, so I will step away from the discussion.

Click to expand...

I am fully convinced that The church in The 1st century subsists in The 1st century, that is where it belongs. The Church in The 21st century is The reality that is present with us now. it is a much larger church it is a church with much more matured and well thought through positions, on all sorts of issues that would never have been conceived in The 1st century. and as I said in my previous post. I believe it is a mistake. to look for The first century church, today, because it simply does not and cannot exist.

Carl Emerson said:

So how did you become a Christian ?

Click to expand...

at The risk of sounding trite - I became a Christian by The work of The Holy Spirit through The witness of other christians whom he had called before and who bore witness to me.

Carl Emerson said:

That doesn't seem to be how God viewed it...

To the angel of the church in Ephesus write:

The One who holds the seven stars in His right hand, the One who walks among the seven golden lampstands, says this:

2 ‘I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false;
3 and you have perseverance and have endured for My name’s sake, and have not grown weary.
4 But I have this against you, that you have left your first love.
5 Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and will remove your lampstand out of its place—unless you repent.
6 Yet this you do have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. 7 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the tree of life which is in the Paradise of God.’

Click to expand...

why did you choose The letter to The church in Ephesus out of The Book of revelation?

I did a web search to find out if there is still a church in Ephesus Today, surprisingly there is it's made up of mainly former Muslims who've converted to christianity they are according to co-pilot Protestants.

Yes—though the ancient city of Ephesus itself is now an archaeological site, the nearby modern town of Selçuk, just a few kilometres away, hosts a small but active Christian presence.

Current Christian Worship in the Region

• Selçuk is home to a small Protestant congregation composed largely of former Muslim converts who gather for worship and fellowship.
• The town also attracts Christian pilgrims due to its proximity to sites traditionally associated with St John the Evangelist and the Virgin Mary.
• The House of the Virgin Mary, located on Mount Koressos near Ephesus, is a Catholic shrine and pilgrimage site recognised by several popes, including John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

Historical Context

• The original church in Ephesus, addressed in Revelation 2:1–7, was praised for doctrinal vigilance but warned for losing its first love.
• Over centuries, Ephesus declined due to silting of its harbour and shifting trade routes. The Christian community faded, and the city was eventually abandoned.

So while the ancient Ephesian church no longer exists in its original form, Christian worship continues nearby—quietly, faithfully, and with deep historical resonance.

The church of Ephesus, to which that letter in The revelation is addressed is no longer with us. it passed away long ago, perhaps after The Muslim conquest of that area of The world. do you think that that letter has a special prophetic significance is that why you have quoted it?

The letter to the church in Ephesus, as recorded in Revelation 2:1–7, is not to be construed as a prophetic archetype of the contemporary Church, despite popular dispensationalist readings. Marvin Rosenthal, rejecting the notion that the seven churches represent successive epochs of ecclesial history, asserts that “the messages to the seven churches of Asia Minor… are not descriptions of different periods of church history… Rather, the letters… are an urgent warning call to all Christendom—a call to make one’s salvation sure”. This interpretation underscores the immediacy and pastoral specificity of the rebuke, rather than any typological forecast. As Grant Osborne notes, “John had intimate pastoral knowledge of each congregation and was dealing with actual situations in each place”. The Ephesian church, therefore, is addressed as a historical community with particular virtues and failings—not as a cipher for broader ecclesial decline.

Moreover, the rebuke—“you have left your first love” (Rev 2:4)—is not a coded indictment of modern Christianity, but a direct admonition to a community whose doctrinal vigilance had eclipsed its relational devotion. Buist Fanning observes that Christ “knows intimately their hard circumstances… and is vigilant to guard their fidelity,” yet calls them to “repent for their failure to love God and people as they once did”. The threat to “remove your lampstand” (Rev 2:5) is not a universal eschatological pronouncement, but a conditional judgement upon a local church whose witness was at risk. To read this passage as a prophetic mirror of the Church today is to flatten its historical and pastoral contours, ignoring the text’s own insistence that each letter is addressed to a specific congregation with unique circumstances. The Spirit’s exhortation—“He who has an ear, let him hear…” (Rev 2:7)—invites all churches to heed the warning, but does not imply that Ephesus itself symbolises the whole.

Carl Emerson said:

Were you baptised back then ?

Click to expand...

I was baptised in a Lutheran church before I was two years old; it was called The good Shepherd, Lutheran Church, in California it was very close to The cliffs overlooking The Pacific Ocean with a view to Catalina Island.

later, in my early 20s, I was baptised in a local Baptist church which was a part of The Baptist Union of Western Australia. so, I guess that means I was baptised twice, but I think of The first baptism as The valid one and The second baptism as a concession made to Baptist theology.

Carl Emerson said:

So joining the present church did not make you a Christian yet your church seems to teach that salvation is not available anywhere else.

Click to expand...

I think that you are mistaken when you write that The Catholic Church seems to think that salvation is not available anywhere outside of The Catholic Church. The truth of The matter is that The Catholic Church teaches that The fullness of salvation, that is to say, sacramental, doctrinal, practical, and episcopal, is found within The Catholic Church - other bodies have The truth in varying degrees, I do not think anybody could argue against that, since The other bodies have varying doctrines and some of those varying doctrines have to be untrue when they differ from The doctrines of others, though what method could possibly be used to decide which is true and which is not is not immediately clear, if one could go to The bible and get every doctrine needed directly from The words of scripture then there would be no good case for having differing doctrines in The first place. but differing doctrines exist, and nobody is willing to give up The doctrines that they hold to be sacred and dear, to their heart.

The Catholic Church teaches that salvation comes through Jesus Christ and is ordinarily mediated through the Church He founded. The doctrine extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (“outside the Church there is no salvation”) remains a dogmatic truth, yet it must be properly understood. As the Holy Office clarified in 1949, “that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing”. This desire may be explicit, as in catechumens, or implicit, as in those who seek truth and goodness in invincible ignorance.

The Second Vatican Council reaffirmed this in Lumen Gentium §16: “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart… may achieve eternal salvation.” This includes members of ecclesial communities who, though separated from full communion, possess elements of sanctification and truth (Unitatis Redintegratio §3). Their baptism, Scripture, and sincere faith are real means of grace, though imperfectly ordered to the fullness of Catholic unity.

Nevertheless, the Church insists that these paths are not parallel alternatives. As Pope Pius IX taught, “it must be held as certain that those who live in ignorance of the true religion… are not subject to any guilt… But who would dare to set limits to this ignorance?” (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 1863). Thus, while salvation outside visible membership is possible, it is never ordinary, and the Church remains the “universal sacrament of salvation” (Lumen Gentium §48). Evangelisation and ecumenical dialogue are therefore acts of charity, not presumption.

Carl Emerson said:

Because it clearly demonstrated that looking back on the past was the right thing to do.

Most Christians struggle with the first 5 chapters of Acts because first love resulted in unity and equality - and most churches are light years away from it.

Click to expand...

I must admit that I'm curious to know if you read much beyond The very short quote that you included as part of your post shown above?

Carl Emerson said:

Curious ??? I read scripture regularly and no other 'Christian' input for 5 years straight. I have been conducting a bible study in Acts on line. I guess I have been reading scripture for about 60 years. I have attended a non-denominational bible college. So I know the context well.

Click to expand...

But that is not what I asked about nor is it what I wrote in my post.

Strong in Him said:

So you don't want to reply to the fact that the Church is all Christians;

Click to expand...

That is where your mistake begins, there are many Christians who are not in the church, there are many churches that contain few, if any, Christians. The way that you define church is so inexact so general has to have almost no meaning. I have spoken with many Protestants who maintain that church means the body of Christ and a few who say that church means a building. In this very thread one Christian has told me, the church means a building. And even after posting a quite good definition for that christian they retained the view that church means building.

Of course church does not mean building, it means the house of God, in the scriptures that house is called the Temple of The Holy Spirit. It is a spiritual building whose chief cornerstone is Jesus Christ himself. Christians are built into that temple. it's a pity to miss that detail.

So yes, the church is the body of Christ, it is the temple of The Holy Spirit, it is The house of God, and importantly it is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

But I think that you are not yet prepared to say that the Church is The pillar and foundation of the truth. I think that you would rather put that on to the Bible, or maybe you'd be willing to put it on to the Holy Spirit speaking in the holy scriptures. But you will not allow the church to occupy that role, despite the scriptures describing the church as being exactly that.

Without a clear definition of what you think the church is it will be impossible to make any real headway in a discussion about unity. After all, how can the church be unified if we don't know what it is? So, perhaps you will indulge me, and tell me what the church is? Give me a functional definition of what you think the church is, please.

Strong in Him said:

those who follow Jesus' teachings?
You don't want to reply to the fact that Jesus saves, not the church?

Click to expand...

Without The Instrumentality of the church, nobody will be saved. If the church is the body of Christ then it is his arms and his legs, his mouth and his eyes, and everything that is capable of communicating the gospel to the world. And what is the mission of the church, if not to communicate the gospel to the world as well as to the faithful? So, truly the church does save, it saves by preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world, and in conjunction with the Holy Spirit, people are brought to a living faith in Jesus Christ, and this is what leads to their salvation.

Strong in Him said:

You stated that we would have to add other issues to our declaration of faith in Jesus; judgement, resurrection of the saints etc. I said that these were taught by Jesus and that faith in him means accepting his teachings - and you don't want to answer that?

Click to expand...

No, I don't want to answer that. You're only repeating what I've already said, there is nothing to answer.

Besides there is a lot more than the few things that you mentioned from my post in a statement of faith. A statement of faith has to cover a lot of ground, because the gospel is not a little short summary a kind of single page executive summary of God's purpose for the world. The gospel is the good news of Jesus Christ that brings human beings into a living and vital relationship with God, without which it is impossible to be saved.

Strong in Him said:

That suggests that you can't answer without compromising what you have been taught about the Catholic church. Either that, or you simply don't have an answer because everything I said is correct.

Click to expand...

it suggests no such thing; I do not know why it is so common for people to make these bad logic errors when dealing with Catholic teaching. The Catechism of The Catholic Church is remarkably clear and there are many other documents that The church publishes and many other catechisms that individual churches in different nations have published that make it abundantly clear that it is God who saves, that it is the church, that is his instrument, and that it is The work of The Holy Spirit to bring a faithful Christian home to heaven at The end of their life.

so no, everything you said is not correct. a good deal of it is incorrect as the answers I've given above indicate.