Assume you are wrong.

[Asinner]

what makes you think the universal body of believers would not be a clearly identifiable thing, apart from an institution?

What he said, in direct translation, is The Universal Called out Assembly.

That is a far cry from the Institutional Catholic Church.

If you are looking for the word "church" as in institution/building, you should be looking for Kuriokos. not Ekklesia.

What is your point? The Church has always been a Spiritual and Physical Kingdom identified by It's teachings and Body that emanated Virtue and Grace.

Love,
Christina

 

[ScottBot]

likely Ekklesia. the transliteration has been around for a loooong time.

The point being that it means both the "called out assembly", the "institution" and the "building" in which the "called out assembly" goes to interact with the "institution". Its all part and parcel, the whole ball of wax.

 

[NewToLife]

never saw a corporate body in the entire gospels in relation to Jesus. Jesus had his diciples. They held to no denomination, no Church (such as the RCC) what they did hold to was Christ.

The disciples were united in a single faith, that is and always has been the basis for the unity of the communion of believers that goes by the English name Church. The question is therefore whether those who have formed new assemblies because they could not accept that single faith can truly claim to be in communion.

 

[Uphill Battle]

The point being that it means both the "called out assembly", the "institution" and the "building" in which the "called out assembly" goes to interact with the "institution". Its all part and parcel, the whole ball of wax.

sure. Words change meaning over time.


Examples, Gay, rosary, Silly, etc...

Language is dualized, perverted, all the time.

 

[sunlover1]

The question is therefore whether those who have formed new assemblies because they could not accept that single faith can truly claim to be in communion.

It's not our job to shut up the kingdom
of God.

Matthew 23:13
... You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces.
You yourselves do not enter,
nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

Wouldn't this, what Jesus said, be the
criteria, rather than what you're insinuating?

John 3:3
3 In reply Jesus declared,
"I tell you the truth,
no one can see the kingdom of God
unless he is born again."


If one is born again, and can see the kingdom
of God, are they not "in communion" too?

John 5:24
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you,
He that heareth my word,
and believeth on him that sent me,
hath everlasting life,
and shall not come into condemnation;
but is passed from death unto life.

 

[NewToLife]

Matthew 23:13
... You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces.
You yourselves do not enter,
nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

Wouldn't this, what Jesus said, be the
criteria, rather than what you're insinuating?

If a man walks into a garage but insists he is in the theatre and I point out his error am I, in doing so excluding him from the theatre? I think not.

John 3:3
3 In reply Jesus declared,
"I tell you the truth,
no one can see the kingdom of God
unless he is born again."


If one is born again, and can see the kingdom
of God, are they not "in communion" too?

Is someone who professes to being born again automatically so?

John 5:24
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you,
He that heareth my word,
and believeth on him that sent me,
hath everlasting life,
and shall not come into condemnation;
but is passed from death unto life.

Indeed. Yet your reading seems to assume a meaning that is actually absent. A Muslim thinks he believes on the same God, he may well have heard the gospel. Has he salvation despite his error?

Modern American readings are far too focused on some passages and blithely ignore others. Anyone would think from US Evangelicals that it is enough to be liberated from Egypt and that entering the promised land is an unnecessary frill.

 

[Iollain]

The disciples were united in a single faith, that is and always has been the basis for the unity of the communion of believers that goes by the English name Church. The question is therefore whether those who have formed new assemblies because they could not accept that single faith can truly claim to be in communion.

Communion with what?

 

[NewToLife]

Communion with what?

Christ and in Christ, each other.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Christ and in Christ, each other.

and this is impossible apart from YOUR chuch, correct?

 

[NewToLife]

and this is impossible apart from YOUR chuch, correct?

It's about unity of belief, not institutions, if we believe different things we are not united, to say otherwise is to engage in a deceit. I think I have deja vue here as we seem to have had this exchange before. It's odd therefore that you still labour unter the same tired old misapprehension that Orthodoxy excludes you somehow, plainly you exclude yourself from unity with us by rejecting what we hold as true. I am unaware that Christ proclaimed multiple gospels, are you under the impression that He did?

 

[Uphill Battle]

It's about unity of belief, not institutions, if we believe different things we are not united, to say otherwise is to engage in a deceit. I think I have deja vue here as we seem to have had this exchange before. It's odd therefore that you still labour unter the same tired old misapprehension that Orthodoxy excludes you somehow, plainly you exclude yourself from unity with us by rejecting what we hold as true. I am unaware that Christ proclaimed multiple gospels, are you under the impression that He did?

nope.

Just that the things that divide us, are not IN the gospels.

Mary as personally blameless.
Communion of saints.
etc.

 

[ScottBot]

and this is impossible apart from YOUR chuch, correct?

How can we been in communion when there is no common union, which is what communion means?

 

[ScottBot]

nope.

Just that the things that divide us, are not IN the gospels.

Mary as personally blameless.
Communion of saints.
etc.

Oh, you mean paradigms and personal opinion. Ya, they do get in the way alot.

 

[NewToLife]

nope.

Just that the things that divide us, are not IN the gospels.

Mary as personally blameless.
Communion of saints.
etc.

There are plenty of issues which are very much in the gospels that divide us also. Indeed in the case of much of modern protestantism which preaches what I would call ( with acknowledgement to Bonhoeffer ) 'cheap grace' we clearly do not preach one gospel.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Oh, you mean paradigms and personal opinion. Ya, they do get in the way alot.

no doubt. Holding the personal opinion that "my church has everything right, therefore everyone else is wrong" certainly puts a crimp in the matter.

 

[Uphill Battle]

There are plenty of issues which are very much in the gospels that divide us also. Indeed in the case of much of modern protestantism which preaches what I would call ( with acknowledgement to Bonhoeffer ) 'cheap grace' we clearly do not preach one gospel.

ah, by cheap grace, you mean, OSAS, correct?

 

[ScottBot]

no doubt. Holding the personal opinion that "my church has everything right, therefore everyone else is wrong" certainly puts a crimp in the matter.

As opposed to "The Holy Spirit tells me personally that you are wrong and I am right."

 

[Uphill Battle]

As opposed to "The Holy Spirit tells me personally that you are wrong and I am right."

now, have I once claimed so?

 

[NewToLife]

ah, by cheap grace, you mean, OSAS, correct?

No, I dont mean OSAS though there is certainly a link.

 

[ScottBot]

now, have I once claimed so?

Its implied.

I.e., "Nowhere in Scripture does it say...." or pithy little openers like that.

Also, your antagonism to any and all organized faith groups speaks volumes. You may not explicitly state it. you may not even consciencously think it, but subconsiously you have to believe something like this.