- Jul 10, 2016
- 5,459
- 2,197
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
"ClementofA, post: 72064078, member: 388980"
Question: "What is the church?"
Answer: Many people today understand the church as a building. This is not a biblical understanding of the church. The word “church” comes from the Greek word ekklesia which is defined as “an assembly” or “called-out ones.” The root meaning of “church” is not that of a building, but of people. It is ironic that when you ask people what church they attend, they usually identify a building. Romans 16:5 says “… greet the church that is in their house.” Paul refers to the church in their house—not a church building, but a body of believers.
The church is the body of Christ, of which He is the head. Ephesians 1:22-23 says, “And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.” The body of Christ is made up of all believers in Jesus Christ from the day of Pentecost (Acts chapter 2) until Christ’s return. The body of Christ is comprised of two aspects:
1) The universal church consists of all those who have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink” (1 Corinthians 12:13). This verse says that anyone who believes is part of the body of Christ and has received the Spirit of Christ as evidence. The universal church of God is all those who have received salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
This is a typical Protestant apologia for their refusal to be joined to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church which is hierarchical in nature. We don't see anything like this in Scripture - AT ALL! It is a fond Protestant fantasy which was cooked up by the Reformers.
The Church is a covenant body of believers. We see this first in the qa'hal, or congregation, of Israel. There was a distinct place to meet, a distinct form of worship, and distinct leadership. These same earmarks are present in the New Covenant Church - distinct place, distinct worship, distinct hierarchy.
2) The local church is described in Galatians 1:1-2: “Paul, an apostle … and all the brothers with me, to the churches in Galatia.” Here we see that in the province of Galatia there were many churches—what we call local churches. A Baptist church, Lutheran church, Catholic church, etc., is not the church, as in the universal church—but rather is a local church, a local body of believers. The universal church is comprised of those who belong to Christ and who have trusted Him for salvation. These members of the universal church should seek fellowship and edification in a local church.
Horsefeathers!!! This totally violates covenant principles found in the Bible. Every covenant group, whether family, church, or political, has a leadership head. In the apostolic faith, the head of the Church is Christ Jesus. Following the OT Suzerainty kingship patterns of covenant authority, the greater king (Christ) makes covenant with lesser kings and appoints them as vassal kings (archbishops and bishops) under his Covenant headship.
The idea of a "local church" as defined by Fundamentalists and Evangelicals goes against the covenant principle of hierarchical leadership. It is actually rebellion against the established leadership which began with the Apostles and was handed down from generation to generation. That is the principle of succession.
Within the idea of the "local church," you have rebellious, autonomous bodies and preachers who actually brag that they take orders from no one. I know. I was a Fundamentalist for 13 years and I heard this - a lot!! That is the sin of pride ("No one tells me what to do or how to run my congregation.")
Really?
So, of course, since they are not bound by Holy Tradition or the leadership of bishops over them, some of these men have come up with some pretty weird and sometimes dangerous ideas which they foist upon the people who trust in them.
The "universal church," as you define it, cannot be the Church because the Church is one in doctrine and teaching, yet if you apply your idea of everyone who has "believed in Jesus" as being in the universal church, you get thousands of independent bodies with hundreds of different doctrines - for instance, at least 25 different teachings on how to baptize and who may be baptized.
Is the Holy Spirit really that schizophrenic? I don't think so!!!!
In summary, the church is not a building or a denomination. According to the Bible, the church is the body of Christ—all those who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation (John 3:16; 1 Corinthians 12:13). Local churches are gatherings of members of the universal church. The local church is where the members of the universal church can fully apply the “body” principles of 1 Corinthians chapter 12: encouraging, teaching, and building one another up in the knowledge and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Local parishes may exist, but they are ALWAYS in union with their archbishop or metropolitan, unlike Protestantism where each little storefront X-Baskin Robbins Ice Cream Parlor now "Worldwide Church of the New Saints and Apostles, is its own authority. Are you getting what I am saying here? The idea of thousands of sui juris (independent, self-governing, answering to no higher authority)assemblies is not scriptural AT ALL!!! It violates covenant principles and is not how the Apostles understood the Church. Just read St. Paul. It was understood in his writings that he held authority over each of the little "house churches" in the area, whereas today, Fundamentalists would throw him out on his ear for daring to come in and claim authority from the Lord.
You
are
wrong.
And as an X-Fundamentalist who used to believe the same error, I make no apology for taking a strong stand on this. There is but one Kingdom - not thousands!!!!
It's probably best to get someone's permission before you quote their post, especially into another section of the forums.
This is a typical Protestant apologia for their refusal to be joined to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church which is hierarchical in nature. We don't see anything like this in Scripture - AT ALL! It is a fond Protestant fantasy which was cooked up by the Reformers.
The Church is a covenant body of believers. We see this first in the qa'hal, or congregation, of Israel. There was a distinct place to meet, a distinct form of worship, and distinct leadership. These same earmarks are present in the New Covenant Church - distinct place, distinct worship, distinct hierarchy.
Horsefeathers!!! This totally violates covenant principles found in the Bible. Every covenant group, whether family, church, or political, has a leadership head. In the apostolic faith, the head of the Church is Christ Jesus. Following the OT Suzerainty kingship patterns of covenant authority, the greater king (Christ) makes covenant with lesser kings and appoints them as vassal kings (archbishops and bishops) under his Covenant headship.
The idea of a "local church" as defined by Fundamentalists and Evangelicals goes against the covenant principle of hierarchical leadership. It is actually rebellion against the established leadership which began with the Apostles and was handed down from generation to generation. That is the principle of succession.
Within the idea of the "local church," you have rebellious, autonomous bodies and preachers who actually brag that they take orders from no one. I know. I was a Fundamentalist for 13 years and I heard this - a lot!! That is the sin of pride ("No one tells me what to do or how to run my congregation.")
So, of course, since they are not bound by Holy Tradition or the leadership of bishops over them, some of these men have come up with some pretty weird and sometimes dangerous ideas which they foist upon the people who trust in them.
The "universal church," as you define it, cannot be the Church because the Church is one in doctrine and teaching, yet if you apply your idea of everyone who has "believed in Jesus" as being in the universal church, you get thousands of independent bodies with hundreds of different doctrines - for instance, at least 25 different teachings on how to baptize and who may be baptized.
Is the Holy Spirit really that schizophrenic? I don't think so!!!!
Unity isn't thousands of people saying "I agree with everything the EO church says" .
I'd say unity based upon 'conformity to doctrine or government' has been a joke since it was used for the first time....whenever 'that' was. For a fact, it would have been after Paul "condemned" Peter for doctrinal disagreement AND how they governed in Jerusalem.
GAL 2:11 But when Cephas/PETER came to Antioch I/PAUL opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
He goes on to elaborate how Peter was scared of the 'circumcision party'(Gal 2:12 Acts 21:20) (the 'circumcision party' was the Jews who became Christians, but were still "zealous for the law". Peter's fear of them, along with the rest of the Jerusalem leaders, or "those who seemed to be pillars" (according to Paul Gal 2:9) then allowed that Jewish influence to come up with a gospel which was a mixture of the 'gospel and the law'. Paul even called 'their hybrid gospel' the "gospel OF the Circumcision" (Gal 2:7).
I quit the Catholic church long ago, but coming to this truth many years later, simply confirmed to me that 'church unity' based upon 'doctrinal agreement' or 'form of governing based upon man' never happened then and has never happened since.
When God looks down from heaven He only sees ONE CHURCH. And 'that' church is filled with His people, no matter what name hangs on the front door of the building. And all the rest of the 'congregants' in those buildings are unsaved religious people.
I'm going to disagree. For one thing, the book of Galatians was written AFTER the "private" meeting of Acts 15. And scripture doesn't support that the council of Acts 15 resolved ALL the issues, of which there were many. The sect of pharisee Christians demanded they not only keep 'circumcision' but 'the law of Moses' in Acts 15. And Peter agreed that the yoke of the law was something that even the Jews were never able to bear.Those tensions were resolved in the first Council of Jerusalem in about 50AD = Acts 15
You are quite correct that there has always been contention in the Church, yet up until the time of Constantine, the Church always managed to mend fences and maintain unity.
Modern disunity stems from as yet unresolved disputes, as yet unsettled by the binding ruling of a Council. Early on, facing the common tribulations of persecutions from the pagan Roman empire, Christians apparently favored unity over personal favorite interpretations of Scripture. The opposite is now true.
Hypothetically maybe people could agree to one year binding decisions or something like that
well, I can't prove it, but I accept the early dating of Galatians, prior to the Jerusalem Council. I'm generally inclined to accept the earliest scholarly supportable dates of Scripture.I'm going to disagree. For one thing, the book of Galatians was written AFTER the "private" meeting of Acts 15. And scripture doesn't support that the council of Acts 15 resolved ALL the issues, of which there were many. The sect of pharisee Christians demanded they not only keep 'circumcision' but 'the law of Moses' in Acts 15. And Peter agreed that the yoke of the law was something that even the Jews were never able to bear.
15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples (GENTILES), which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"
In the end, the leadership of Jerusalem agreed to only one requirement of the Gentile Christians concerning the law of Moses and it was;
ACT 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
But Jerusalem's gospel of the circumcision rules were still different than the Paul's gospel of the uncircumcision. So the only agreement was this; When in Jerusalem submit to the gospel of the circumcision with ALL its Jewish influence, including circumcision. And circumcision was something that even Titus refused to get while with Paul in that Jerusalem meeting. The only 'unity' which was truly the main agreement, was this; When in Jerusalem follow the "gospel of the circumcision" (2:10), but when in Galatia follow Paul's "gospel of the uncircumcision". And that was the very argument that Paul was condemning Peter for (2:11)...Paul rebuked him for his hypocrisy concerning eating non kosher food with the 'Gentiles', UNTIL he got back to Jerusalem and in the presence of the Jewish Christians whom they feared. And that fear continued long after chapter 15 until chapter 21 of Acts when Paul went back to Jerusalem the 'last time' and submitted 'not to the prophesies of the Holy Spirit telling him not go to Jerusalem' but instead he submitted to the Jewish influenced leadership, who told Paul to do what 'they said' instead.
ACT 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. 22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. 23 Do therefore this that we say to thee:
NOT what the Holy Spirit prophesied for Paul to do (Act 21:23).
Acts 21:4 And having sought out the disciples, we stayed there for seven days. Through the Spirit they told Paul not to go on to Jerusalem.
Your thoughts?
As you've undoubtedly noticed I'm try to quote scripture in my posts for support. And concerning this 'point of difference', I'll do the same. Paul is 'recounting' his AD 50 Jerusalem visit in AD 52 Galatians.well, I can't prove it, but I accept the early dating of Galatians, prior to the Jerusalem Council. I'm generally inclined to accept the earliest scholarly supportable dates of Scripture.
That too is an opinion you are entitled to have, but I don't see scripture supporting it. If you do please provide it. But as I read it, Acts 15 never implied that Gentiles would ever have to be Jews. I think it just allowed the religiously indoctrinated "stiff necked" Jewish Christians to continue practicing a mixture of law and grace concerning things which no longer had any value for justification. So again please support that opinion with a verse if you would.Acts 15 freed new gentile converts from having to become Jews first.
This is a another point where I think scripture disagrees with you.Acts 21 dealt with native Jews who rightly knew that Jews had to keep keeping the Law, even after they accepted Jesus as the Messiah...
But it wasn't a 'rightful fear' IMO. It was a religious fear of the new religion's leadership waffling because of the influence of the 'old religion's leadership' who were now "Christians".Such that they rightly feared to hear rumors that Paul was teaching "born again native born Jews" to illegally backslide.
Just as James the Just, brother of the Lord and second Bishop of Jerusalem after Peter, prayed daily in the physical temple of Jerusalem until his knees were as calloused as a camel's, and kept the Law, so all Jewish Christians had to keep keeping the Law (Acts 21) even while new gentile Christian converts were allowed to bypass the Law and enter the Church under what modern Jews would call the Noachide Laws (Acts 15) which apply to all children of Noah, Jew and gentile.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?