A conversation about unity.

[Strong in Him]

The truth itself cannot compromise it's either true or it is not true. Jesus Christ founded one Church.

Yes - ALL believers.

Jesus told his 12 disciples they were to make disciples of all nations and to be his witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and to the ends of the earth.
The church began in Jerusalem, led by James. The disciples and believers were scattered by persecution and fled - taking the Gospel with them. Tradition says that Thomas went to India, etc.
Jesus appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus. After his conversion, he met with other believers and was sent out, by them, to take a collection of money to poorer churches. Paul went, preaching the Gospel and founding several churches along the way.

A church, or Ecclesia, is an assembly of people. Paul was establishing local congregations, but they all believed the same Gospel and all belonged to Jesus - the rock and foundation stone of the faith.

 

[ozso]

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.

The church has been reshaped and morphed by human design. Just like the 7 churches in Revelation. It's not the church of the 1st century that's been changed by human design, but rather the church up to the 5th century. And the church is spiritual, not cultural. Human culture and ideology change over time. But the spiritual will of God doesn't. There's absolutely no spiritual reason why the church should have changed so much over time. That's not God's will and design at play. It's the will and design of man at play.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The church has been reshaped and morphed by human design. Just like the 7 churches in Revelation. It's not the church of the 1st century that's been changed by human design, but rather the church up to the 5th century. And the church is spiritual, not cultural. Human culture and ideology change over time. But the spiritual will of God doesn't. There's absolutely no spiritual reason why the church should have changed so much over time. That's not God's will and design at play. It's the will and design of man at play.

you're longing for a past to which no one can ever return. The first century and The 5th century, Are Irredeemably Lost. no 1. can recover them. no one can go back to them. it is a fool's errand to try.

and it seems to me completely wrong to think that 20 centuries of time has been an entirely human endeavour that somehow God has been locked out of creation. and is incapable of directing it. that too seems like a foolish conclusion to reach.

The church as it is now with The faults that it has now, and all The other things The foibles of men, their errors, their poor philosophy, their good philosophy all of it is in accord with The purpose that God has laid out from The beginning. I will not join you in this lament for The past, I think it's just self destructive.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Yes - ALL believers.

Jesus told his 12 disciples they were to make disciples of all nations and to be his witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and to the ends of the earth.
The church began in Jerusalem, led by James. The disciples and believers were scattered by persecution and fled - taking the Gospel with them. Tradition says that Thomas went to India, etc.
Jesus appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus. After his conversion, he met with other believers and was sent out, by them, to take a collection of money to poorer churches. Paul went, preaching the Gospel and founding several churches along the way.

A church, or Ecclesia, is an assembly of people. Paul was establishing local congregations, but they all believed the same Gospel and all belonged to Jesus - the rock and foundation stone of the faith.

this has all been dealt with before in posts that I put in this thread previously. I don't see anything to be gained by repeating anything that I've said before. I don't see anything to be gained from you repeating what you've said before. we can either move on or stop. I have more to say, I don't know if you do, so I will not be stopping at this time.

 

[Strong in Him]

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.

There are Christians who don't "go to church", yes. And in my experience that has always been because they are sick of discussions about bricks and mortar, debates about some triviality of church practice or maybe of arguments like this one, when the church should be focussing on mission, preaching the Good News, being salt and light to the world, and so on.
The word "Christian" has become devalued, yes - and now seems to include those who have been baptised, live in a Christian country and do good deeds.

But in my posts I have also written of accepting Jesus as Lord and being born again by the Holy Spirit. THAT is what makes someone a Christian.
I think I also previously said that the church is all believers. Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists etc etc all believe the same Gospel and have the same Father and Saviour.

The way that you define church is so inexact so general has to have almost no meaning.

No, it's the word "Christian" that has become devalued and inexact.
The followers of the Way were called Christians because they were like Christ and doing the same things that he did; healing, raising the dead and preaching the Good News. Sometimes they fearlessly challenged the authorities - the religious leaders who were so blinded by tradition and their interpretation of it, that they missed Jesus.

I have spoken with many Protestants who maintain that church means the body of Christ

It does. We all belong to Christ and are members of his body.

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,

It means the body of Christ.
ALL who believe and trust in Jesus as their Saviour and Lord are IN Christ - branches on the vine, sheep in the Shepherd's fold, living stones with Christ as the foundation and so on.

Yes, there are people who would say they are Christian and mean that they go to church occasionally and do good deeds. Just as there are people who say they are Catholic but don't go to Mass or no longer attend a Catholic church. I know; I have spoken to them. But it's not for us to decide whether they are true Christians or not.

in the scriptures that house is called the Temple of The Holy Spirit.

No, WE are temples of the Holy Spirit. That was what happened at Pentecost; the prophecy given to Joel, "my Spirit will be poured out on ALL people", was fulfilled.
Paul wrote those words about the body being a temple of the Holy Spirit to a group of believers who were engaged in sexual immorality, 1 Corinthians 3:16; 1 Corinthians 6:19.

So yes, the church is the body of Christ, it is the temple of The Holy Spirit,

All Christians - born again believers who are IN Christ - are members of his body.
All believers are temples of the Holy Spirit.

But I think that you are not yet prepared to say that the Church is The pillar and foundation of the truth.

JESUS is Truth.
True believers accept Jesus, have received Jesus, live in Jesus and follow Jesus.

I think that you would rather put that on to the Bible,

No, the Bible contains God's word of truth - Jesus is THE Word. He is God's final word. The Alpha and the Omega - the first letter and the last, and every letter in between.

or maybe you'd be willing to put it on to the Holy Spirit speaking in the holy scriptures.

The Holy Spirit - the Spirit of the Lord and Spirit of Jesus, who is the Spirit of Truth - is also God.

But you will not allow the church to occupy that role,

To occupy a position reserved for God? No.

Each Christian congregation has rules, discipline and authority, yes. And members should, rightly, submit to that authority.
But Jesus has received ALL authority, Matthew 28:18 - and if church practice contradicts Jesus' words and teachings, we are to obey Jesus.

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.

I know what the church is - and I know what a Christian is.

I am pleased that you don't consider the church to be A building. But, it seems, you do consider it to be an institution - one headed by the Apostles and their successors who, for you, hold as much authority as the Bible. And only believers who acknowledge that authority, tradition and teaching are the church.

Without The Instrumentality of the church, nobody will be saved.

People are saved through and by Jesus - no one and nothing else. Or don't you believe Peter's words in Acts 4:12?

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,

No - Jesus saves.
We are told to preach the Gospel, yes - we are only God's instruments; God's mouthpiece.
If a person listen to the Gospel, that is because the Spirit is working in them; maybe as a response to our prayers. If a person responds to the words that the Spirit gives to us/ to our clergy, evangelists etc, that is still the Spirit at work.
The praise and credit should go to the Spirit whose role is to point people to Jesus, and not to the person who obeyed Jesus's command to preach his words.

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

Well I wasn't actually.
You said that it was not enough to declare Jesus as Lord and believe that he had been raised; that we needed to add resurrection of the saints and other doctrines to the definition of the Gospel.
I said that Jesus taught all those things - except ordination - and that a person who accepts Jesus accepts his words and teachings.
In other words "receiving Jesus as Lord" means accepting all that he was, is and all that he said.

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,

The first creed, or statement of faith, was "Jesus is Lord".

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.

It's got nothing to do with Catholic teaching.
The fact that you "did not want to answer" my post - and questions - which was written in answer to yours suggested to me that you either couldn't be bothered or that you had no answer.
You have now written an answer to it - some of which I agree with - so thank you.

 

[Strong in Him]

I have more to say, I don't know if you do, so I will not be stopping at this time.

If it's more to say about unity - carry on.
If it's more about Catholic teaching, doctrine, church authority and Catholic councils, I'm not Catholic.

 

[ozso]

you're longing for a past to which no one can ever return. The first century and The 5th century, Are Irredeemably Lost. no 1. can recover them. no one can go back to them. it is a fool's errand to try.

and it seems to me completely wrong to think that 20 centuries of time has been an entirely human endeavour that somehow God has been locked out of creation. and is incapable of directing it. that too seems like a foolish conclusion to reach.

The church as it is now with The faults that it has now, and all The other things The foibles of men, their errors, their poor philosophy, their good philosophy all of it is in accord with The purpose that God has laid out from The beginning. I will not join you in this lament for The past, I think it's just self destructive.

So what existed regarding teaching and practices up to the 5th century that can't be applied now? What became obsolete?

 

[Carl Emerson]

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

Clarify please.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

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?

That is what I wrote.

Clarify please.

is that clear?

 

[ARBITER01]

Whelp,....from the looks of this thread, I think people like freedom with Jesus way more than old church membership and traditions.

 

[ozso]

Whelp,....from the looks of this thread, I think people like freedom with Jesus way more than old church membership and traditions.

Not original old church membership requirement. Originally the only requirement was belief in Christ. But rather membership requirements men came up with much later on. Which takes months up to a year for a baptized Christian to achieve.

 

[PloverWing]

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.

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.

I was trying to be brief in my summary, but it looks like I was too brief.

I fully agree that Christianity has grown and developed over the years, that this is something to be expected in any religion, and that this growth is largely a good thing. It's a mix of the Holy Spirit's guidance, and changes in human culture, and (alas) human sinfulness, but there's more good than bad, and there's much that's wonderful about Christianity in its present form. I am not trying to freeze the church into its 1st-century form. (I know that some Christians try to do that, but I'm not one of them.)

Here's what I was trying to describe: You seem to say that the Catholic church has a continuity with the 1st-century church in a way that Orthodox churches do not. I think you've been saying that the Catholic church is the church Jesus founded, and that the Orthodox churches are not the church Jesus founded. Have I understood you correctly?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I was trying to be brief in my summary, but it looks like I was too brief.

I fully agree that Christianity has grown and developed over the years, that this is something to be expected in any religion, and that this growth is largely a good thing. It's a mix of the Holy Spirit's guidance, and changes in human culture, and (alas) human sinfulness, but there's more good than bad, and there's much that's wonderful about Christianity in its present form. I am not trying to freeze the church into its 1st-century form. (I know that some Christians try to do that, but I'm not one of them.)

Here's what I was trying to describe: You seem to say that the Catholic church has a continuity with the 1st-century church in a way that Orthodox churches do not. I think you've been saying that the Catholic church is the church Jesus founded, and that the Orthodox churches are not the church Jesus founded. Have I understood you correctly?

no.

by and large I say nothing about the Orthodox.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

.... well that was fun. And brothas and sistas, I'm done arguing with any of you about how I fall 'short' and am on my way to Hell simply because I don't, and won't, tow the line by refraining from applying every critical thing I've ever learned at the university or by burning every Christian (or Secular) scholar I've read.

So, with that in mind and with all of the charity I can muster, and to whom all are involved in this thread, I wish you a blessed and happy eternal life in whichever Trinitarian denomination that just so happens to float your boat.

 

[PloverWing]

no.

by and large I say nothing about the Orthodox.

Would you be willing to say something about the Orthodox now?

In post #5, you mentioned "the one church that Jesus Christ founded and has sustained from the beginning". Do you see the Orthodox as part of this one church?

In post #1, you said that "unity must be more than doctrinal harmony—it must be sacramental and hierarchical, as instituted by Christ and perpetuated through apostolic succession." Do you see the Orthodox churches as being sacramental, hierarchical, instituted by Christ, and perpetuated through apostolic succession?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

.... well that was fun. And brothas and sistas, I'm done arguing with any of you about how I fall 'short' and am on my way to Hell simply because I don't, and won't, tow the line by refraining from applying every critical thing I've ever learned at the university or by burning every Christian (or Secular) scholar I've read.

So, with that in mind and with all of the charity I can muster, and to whom all are involved in this thread, I wish you a blessed and happy eternal life in whichever Trinitarian denomination that just so happens to float your boat.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Would you be willing to say something about the Orthodox now?

no.

In post #5, you mentioned "the one church that Jesus Christ founded and has sustained from the beginning". Do you see the Orthodox as part of this one church?

Ask one who is Orthodox. It is not my place to speak for them.

In post #1, you said that "unity must be more than doctrinal harmony—it must be sacramental and hierarchical, as instituted by Christ and perpetuated through apostolic succession." Do you see the Orthodox churches as being sacramental, hierarchical, instituted by Christ, and perpetuated through apostolic succession?

Ask one who is Orthodox. It is not my place to speak for them.

 

[Strong in Him]

Ask one who is Orthodox. It is not my place to speak for them.

You're not being asked to speak for them - you're being asked if you see the Orthodox church as part of the church that Jesus founded.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You're not being asked to speak for them - you're being asked if you see the Orthodox church as part of the church that Jesus founded.

The Catholic Church recognises the Orthodox Churches as true particular Churches, possessing valid sacraments—especially the Eucharist and Holy Orders—and maintaining apostolic succession. Their liturgical richness, theological depth, and fidelity to the early Councils are deeply respected. Although full communion has not yet been restored, the Catholic Church affirms that the Orthodox tradition remains profoundly close in faith and practice. As the Second Vatican Council taught, the celebration of the Eucharist in these Churches truly builds up the Church of God (Unitatis Redintegratio, §15).

One is encouraged to view Orthodox Christianity not as a rival, but as a noble sibling in Christ. The Catholic Church prays and works for the restoration of full unity, grounded in truth and charity. While certain doctrinal differences—such as the role of the Pope and some theological expressions—remain unresolved, the sanctity and sincerity of Orthodox faith are never in doubt. As Pope Saint John Paul II expressed, the Church longs to “breathe with both lungs,” East and West, in the hope of visible unity under Christ.

 

[Carl Emerson]

That is what I wrote.

is that clear?

Sorry - you responses are confusing - maybe you don't want to process the matters I raised.

Have a great day.