Biblical definition of "the church"

[FenderTL5]

Let's see what some others think, e.g. Catholics, Calvinists, Pentecostals, Baptists, Anglican, etc. Discussion continued here:

Is Eastern Orthodox the one true church?

I grew up in the Independent, Fundamental Baptist Churches of my parents.
As an adult, I was a member of the SBC for almost 30 years.
I discovered the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and made the appropriate move, being Charismated on Lazarus Saturday 2015.

 

[Winken]

actually, the book of Acts says otherwise.

Where, specifically, in the Book of Acts?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Where, specifically, in the Book of Acts?

one example is after St Paul's conversion, he is still required to be baptized. St Paul also insists on making it for Feast Days. to say there is no ceremony is false according to Acts.

 

[Winken]

one example is after St Paul's conversion, he is still required to be baptized. St Paul also insists on making it for Feast Days. to say there is no ceremony is false according to Acts.

Paul was converted to Salvation by Grace through Faith. He was no longer obligated to keep Jewish rituals. He did so during his presentation of Grace to everyone, Jew and Gentile. The Jews didn't get it ..... so Paul moved on. See Acts 13:26-48. See as well Paul's lament for the Jews, Romans 9 thru 11.

The Jews entered into ritual bathing in anticipation of the arrival of their Messiah and the establishment of His Kingdom on earth. Christians, on the other hand, were called upon to confess Jesus as Savior and to follow Him as Lord, not in preparation for an earthly kingdom, but in preparation to become His witnesses, leading others to join with them in His Presence in Heaven. "Witnessing," far from being a ritual in an effort to gain eternal life, is providing the Truth of Grace through Faith, the GIFT of God, not of works (rituals, structure) lest anyone should boast.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Paul was converted to Salvation by Grace through Faith. He was no longer obligated to keep Jewish rituals. He did so during his presentation of Grace to everyone, Jew and Gentile. The Jews didn't get it ..... so Paul moved on. See Acts 13:26-48. See as well Paul's lament for the Jews, Romans 9 thru 11.

The Jews entered into ritual bathing in anticipation of the arrival of their Messiah and the establishment of His Kingdom on earth. Christians, on the other hand, were called upon to confess Jesus as Savior and to follow Him as Lord, not in preparation for an earthly kingdom, but in preparation to become His witnesses, leading others to join with them in His Presence in Heaven. "Witnessing," far from being a ritual in an effort to gain eternal life, is providing the Truth of Grace through Faith, the GIFT of God, not of works (rituals, structure) lest anyone should boast.

I didn't speak of Paul's conversion, but the need for baptism. plus, he insists on attending Feast days.

both of which were after his conversion, and nowhere does Scripture say these are optional.

 

[Light of the East]

Paul was converted to Salvation by Grace through Faith. He was no longer obligated to keep Jewish rituals. He did so during his presentation of Grace to everyone, Jew and Gentile. The Jews didn't get it ..... so Paul moved on. See Acts 13:26-48. See as well Paul's lament for the Jews, Romans 9 thru 11.

The Jews entered into ritual bathing in anticipation of the arrival of their Messiah and the establishment of His Kingdom on earth. Christians, on the other hand, were called upon to confess Jesus as Savior and to follow Him as Lord, not in preparation for an earthly kingdom, but in preparation to become His witnesses, leading others to join with them in His Presence in Heaven. "Witnessing," far from being a ritual in an effort to gain eternal life, is providing the Truth of Grace through Faith, the GIFT of God, not of works (rituals, structure) lest anyone should boast.

Jesus said that He was establishing the New Covenant in His Blood. With any and all covenants, there MUST be a ritual of covenant-making between the two parties. In the Old Covenant, the ritual was circumcision.

Suppose you tell me what the ritual is for the New Covenant, seeing as how you deny that baptism is necessary?

 

[Winken]

Jesus said that He was establishing the New Covenant in His Blood. With any and all covenants, there MUST be a ritual of covenant-making between the two parties. In the Old Covenant, the ritual was circumcision.

Suppose you tell me what the ritual is for the New Covenant, seeing as how you deny that baptism is necessary?

There is none.

 

[Winken]

I didn't speak of Paul's conversion, but the need for baptism. plus, he insists on attending Feast days.

both of which were after his conversion, and nowhere does Scripture say these are optional.

No where does it say that these are mandatory for the born-again Believer in Jesus as Savior/Lord. They were Jewish rituals. Anyone can get baptized, anyone can attend "Feast" days. They just aren't obligatory.

 

[ArmyMatt]

No where does it say that these are mandatory for the born-again Believer in Jesus as Savior/Lord. They were Jewish rituals. Anyone can get baptized, anyone can attend "Feast" days. They just aren't obligatory.

that St Paul was commanded by Christ to do (baptism) and that he was insistent on (the Feast). unless you think you know more of Christianity than Christ and St Paul.

 

[ArmyMatt]

There is none.

not according to Christ.

 

[buzuxi02]

No where does it say that these are mandatory for the born-again Believer in Jesus as Savior/Lord. They were Jewish rituals. Anyone can get baptized, anyone can attend "Feast" days. They just aren't obligatory.

Acts 10:48 When the Gentile pentecost occured and all the jews were astonished that goyim coukd recieve the Holy Spirit, Peter ORDERED them to be baptised. Asides from the instances of the initial Pentecost and the initial gentile reception there is NO evidence in scripture that reception of the Holy Spirit can be attained through belief. And those that did believe
Whether Paul or groups of people had to present themselves to the apostles. They never started their own denomination.or sect or alt-Jesus movement

 

[Light of the East]

There is none.

Your reply shows that you do not know anything about covenants. There is ALWAYS a public ceremony of covenant making. You really need to read Ray Sutton's book on covenant - THAT YOU MAY PROSPER, then follow it up with Patrick Seamus O'Hara's THE DANCE OF ISAIAH to get the full scope of covenant.

BTW - the idea that we have nothing to do with our bodies regarding salvation is semi-gnosticism. It was the Gnostics who taught that the body is evil and has nothing to do in our salvation. I suppose they were the first "faith only" people in Christianity.

 

[Light of the East]

that St Paul was commanded by Christ to do (baptism) and that he was insistent on (the Feast). unless you think you know more of Christianity than Christ and St Paul.

That is a problem with most Protestants. They believe they have discovered some "lost truth" or "deeper truth" than the feeble-minded Early Fathers, who apparently missed a lot.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That is a problem with most Protestants. They believe they have discovered some "lost truth" or "deeper truth" than the feeble-minded Early Fathers, who apparently missed a lot.

Fr Peter Gillquist once said Orthodoxy is all the lines of Scripture he never underlined as a Protestant

 

[Winken]

That is a problem with most Protestants. They believe they have discovered some "lost truth" or "deeper truth" than the feeble-minded Early Fathers, who apparently missed a lot.

Actually, it is simple Truth: Romans 10:8-13, Romans 8:1, John 5:24, Ephesians 2:8-9, John 3:16-17.

 

[Winken]

The Apostles did not have any idea that there would the crucifixion of "the Christ." They were eager to receive the Messiah on earth, including His promised Kingdom. Peter, one of them, did not teach or preach or have any insight into the blood of Jesus as the sacrifice for sin/s prior to the Cross. Remember he said he would never deny Jesus, chopped off that guy's ear, then fled the scene! Jesus revealed the essentials to Paul, known as "the mystery." Otherwise it was unknown. See 1 Corinthians 2:7-8. Remember Peter said that Paul presented information that was "difficult to be understood."

Peter told the Jews, not Gentiles, that they should acknowledge Jesus as Messiah. That acknowledgement included repentance: return to the standing of being innocent, just as Adam-Eve were in the beginning (as the Jews were reminded in the Abrahamic Covenant of Grace, being led to the Promised Land.) See Acts 2:38, Acts 3:19-21.

What happened? The followers of Abraham abandoned that Covenant, just as Adam-Eve had, in the beginning. Whoosh!! The Law of Moses, center stage. Initially they followed it, then abandoned it, as well. Then Jesus proclaimed that no one was under that Law or any other. See Romans 6:14.

The first 7 chapters of the Book of Acts are centered on the Jews alone, not as individuals, but as a people group. Read their lament in responding to Peter! They didn't have a clue! Chapter 8 is the transition period. Then came Chapter 9, praise God, with Paul's outreach to each of us, one-by-one. No more people groups rising and falling, looking to systems, rules, structure, Pharisaical dictatorship, but each of us, confessing or denying eternal security!

Now there was the revelation to Christians carefully presented by Paul.

 

[prodromos]

Actually, it is simple Truth: Romans 10:8-13, Romans 8:1, John 5:24, Ephesians 2:8-9, John 3:16-17.

Do you realise the irony of you quoting from a collection of books known as the "Καινή Διαθήκη", which in English is "New Covenant" or "New Testament"?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Fr Peter Gillquist once said Orthodoxy is all the lines of Scripture he never underlined as a Protestant

That's what's amazing to me. I still run across passages that I am very sure I read dozens of times as a Protestant, because they have always been there. But now they come almost as a shock - I never really remembered them because I never really understood them. Within the context of Orthodoxy, now I suddenly "get it". I've been so tempted to make threads sometimes about whether or not something is in the Bible, maybe - because I can pretty much guarantee many Protestants will claim it absolutely isn't ... then I could show that it is. But I don't like the thought of being underhanded and manipulative. It might get people to think, open their eyes a bit - or maybe some would simply dig in deeper, which I also don't want to be responsible for.

But it's amazing how the eyes are opened when the context is there.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Luke 22

19 And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.

 

[ClementofA]

That is a problem with most Protestants. They believe they have discovered some "lost truth" or "deeper truth" than the feeble-minded Early Fathers, who apparently missed a lot.

The truth is in the Scriptures, not lost.

Since the following two choices contradict one another, Protestants choose the true of the two, unlike EO.

1) the inspired Bible writers: apostles & prophets

2) uninspired writers you refer to who contradict each other & themselves, are heavily interpolated, & have some very strange & erroneous ideas.

Even they tell you to look to the Scriptures alone:

Early Church Fathers' Quotes on Scripture Alone is final Authority | Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. (1 Jn.2:27)