Is there an Universal Church or just local churches?

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Since the history of local churches and any universal church

is constantly being re-written (not good),

perhaps some people, billions even, have been taught wrong history?

Sure seems like it.

It is getting more and more common to find people who have not even read the BIBLE,
yet claim they know something, though mistaken.

And it is definitely getting more difficult to find the truth,

even from ten years ago for the last ten years to today -

much much more is deceptive, and overwhelming people everywhere.

 

[kepha31]

Yes, as was stated: only God fully knows who is a "born again" believer in Christ, but we can know some by their testimony and devotion. Here is a paper that seems to address the universal Church and local expressions/extensions of it:

THOUGHTS ON THE CHURCH AGE
A brief look at God’s intent
By Robert DeWitt, ’05; rev. 04/12​

[According to the Bible, after the ascension of Jesus Christ to heaven, God formed a universal and spiritual body, or company of believers on the earth, which is known as "the church" (Greek -kuriakos ---pertaining to God) and ecclesia ---assembly; and which is the spiritual body of Christ, which encompasses every "born again" believer. Sometimes people ask: what is the name of the true church, when did it begin, and what does it look like? In the Word of God the church does not have a name, and it was formed on the day of Pentecost about A.D. 33 by the coming of the Holy Spirit to indwell believers, as noted in the book of Acts, chapter two. It surely does not look much like the gatherings we see in the various religions and sects man has established since the apostolic period. That which we are seeing around us today and called "churches", are mostly the organizations and sects men have developed out of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Religion, with a variety of modifications. The thought here concerns how God's testimony got into such condition.]

Since there is no name for God's called out assembly (Greek -ecclesia), our gathering together as saints and fellowship should own no name except what God gives ---e.g. saints of God, believers, Christians gathered to the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ alone (Matt.18:20). To denominate with a name is sectarian and is divisive of the universal company of believers (note 1 Cor. 12: 25).

The Christian fellowship we own must be that which began with Acts 2:42, and is viewed in the Epistles in God's Word. True and faithful saints of God surely ought to seek after that which is of God, rather than traditions and the various ideas of men. From New Testament times, saints have survived many attacks from Satan down through the years, and God has maintained His testimony even in weakness in the face of the enemy's attempts to destroy it. We need to appreciate those revivals by God that recovered the Gospel in Protestantism (circa 1500 AD) and the recovery later of Church Truth (circa 1800 AD). Both of these great works of God are for His glory and purposes, and our good.

A study of church history shows a period called "the dark ages" or Middle Ages, when the tyranny of the Roman Catholic Religion prevailed (about 500 A.D. to 1500 A.D.). Faithful saints of God could only meet in secret for fear of persecution or death by the organized religion of Rome for about a thousand years. There was secular persecutions prior to this after the apostolic time, and saints of God had to meet in secret, but with the RCR in circa 500 AD the religious persecutions were severe as the religionists had control of the governments. One can learn more of this in most secular studies of the Middle Ages.

In the 1500's God moved to revive the gospel message of salvation and justification by faith in the grace of God, through the Lord Jesus Christ, and a protest movement called a Reformation began. After much trouble, fear, and slaughter of saints, the tyranny of the RC religion was broken.

Denominated sects with hierarchy then developed much like the RC religion, with other religious men seeking to exalt themselves (as the daughters of Rev.2:20-23 & Rev. 17:5-6). Many faithful saints followed that form in ignorance, for the Word of God was not available to many faithful saints to show them God's way. With the invention of printing the Bible began to circulate widely and more people became literate from late 1500’s onward. Much has been written on this history if one desires to study it further.

In the early 1800's God began another great revival work to recover Church Truth which had been lost since apostolic times. This work, often called "the brethren movement", began in conformity to the New Testament church as found in the Word of God, and it was a lovely thing in its' simplicity and truth and happy fellowship. It spread rapidly, but soon the enemy raised up the flesh of men to bring in imitations and scatter many. This simplicity in Christ seemed too simple and plain for many religious people, who held to their denominated systems, or tried to mix the purity of the New Testament order with various innovations. All this history is available in more detail if one wants to study the "brethren" from the revival of 1827 A.D.

In the beginning of the church in the book of Acts and the Epistles, the saints met without a name, without a special building, without man’s organization, without a priest or one-man leader in charge, without ceremony or rituals, creeds, programs, entertainment, etc. Acts 2:42 was the essence of this pure expression of God's mind, and the innovations of men was not known. Elders were appointed by the Apostles to guide the saints and guard the truth in the church (not as rulers or a hierarchy, and they did not have the gifts of Apostles). The Epistles show us the teachings of the Apostles as God appointed, and the church now goes on with the Holy Scripture and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Today, many do not know about the revival of the 1800's and are not studying the Scriptures, and continue with various sects and religious ideas after their various preferences. Indeed, there are new sects being formed every year, which no doubt displeases and dishonors our Lord.

The work of Satan to ruin a collective universal church testimony in the world has diminished the saints, but God has continued His light, and spiritual saints have held the faith. All of us are responsible to find the expression of the "one body in Christ" according to the Word (especially as we "..see the day (of redemption) approaching" (Heb. 10:25). Some say there is no true and scriptural testimony of the universal church remaining in the world today, and all the sects man has developed is all we have, but that is not true. Some are trying now to add scriptures to their sects and systems to make it more true to the Word. It is not profitable to try to build on a poor foundation. We need Bible-only unity in truth.

While none should presume to boast of perfection, God has maintained His way as He intended, and it remains for each of us to continue together in the path He yet provides (see John 17:11, 21-23; Acts 2:41-42; Rom.12:4-5; I Cor.1:2-13; I Cor.12; Eph.2:19-22; Eph.4; Phil.2:2; etc.).

A scriptural gathering of the saints of God today can be found if one is earnest, faithful, and a sincere seeker. Some ministry about it can be studied at Bible Truth Publishers, Addison, IL and the Internet site: biblecounsel.homestead.com, and one can ask questions there. This writer will help any who honestly desire to sort out truth from all the religious ideas about, study the Word, and be yielded to the leading of the Holy Spirit to find peace and happiness in conformity to God's Word. If one does not have that desire and is satisfied with a religious organization to meet their preferences, we can only commend them to the Lord and go our way. We do not want to debate or strive with any, but be a help to those who wish to get to the heart of the matter. Much sound ministry is available at sound sources stated here.
- RLD

****************************************************************

Your "history" of the Catholic Church is false, another anti-Catholic hatchet job.

 

[kepha31]

[Staff edit].

CATHOLIC: It comes from the Greek word Katholikos, which was later Latinized into Catholicus.

It means 'Universal', which in itself means, 'of or relating to, or affecting the entire world and ALL peoples therein'. It means, ALL encompassing, comprehensibly broad, general, and containing ALL that is neccessary. In summation, it means ALL people in ALL places, having ALL that is necessary, and for ALL time.

Matthew 28:19-20, "Go, therefore and make disciples of ALL nations...teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you; And behold, I am with you ALL days, even unto the consummation of the world." That is a statement of Universality, Katholicos, Catholicus, Catholic.

Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed (KATAnggeletai) throughout the world. (en HOLO to kosmo)
KATAHOLO > KATHOLICOS > CATHOLICUS > CATHOLIC

Acts 9:31 "So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Sama'ria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied."

There the words "church throughout all" is translated from the Greek words "Ecclesia kata holis".
Thus the word KATAHOLOS or Catholic in English originated from Scriptures - Romans 1:8, Acts 9:31 and inferred in Matthew 28:19-20

A mere 11 years after John wrote Revelation, St. Ignatius of Antioch (trained by the Apostle John and third bishop of Antioch) wrote:

"Where the Bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
St. Ignatius of Antioch's letter to the Smyrneans, paragraph 8, of 106 A.D.,
Undoubtedly the word was in use before the time of this writing.

Written records of the term "CATHOLIC" describing a character of the Christian Church:

Martyrdom of St. Polycarp 155AD;
Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 202AD;
Cyprian, Unity of the Catholic Church 251AD;
Cyprian, Letter to Florentius, 254AD

"Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname. The one designates me, while the other makes me specific. Thus am I attested and set apart... When we are called Catholics it is by this appellation that our people are kept apart from any heretical name."
Saint Pacian of Barcelona, Letter to Sympronian, 375 A.D.

We live in a sea of false historiography, and so it is worth asking: What exactly happened during the first centuries of Christianity? How did a small band of believers, starting out in a despised outpost of the Roman Empire, end up the dominant institution of the Mediterranean world? What was "primitive Christianity"? John Henry Newman became a Catholic in the course of answering that question. History, he said, is the enemy of Protestantism. It is also the enemy of the newly vigorous anti-Catholicism that circulates among our cultural elites.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/...ic-church.html

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

"history" of the Catholic Church is false

History (of the churches and the countries) is re-written every day,
for the last several hundred(and more) years in fact.

Which history one chooses to believe doesn't matter. Follow JESUS.

TODAY, harden not your hearts, do not rebel as they did in the wilderness...

yesterday is past and gone.

The only hope for anyone in the whole world is JESUS, HIMSELF, ALIVE,

not church tradition, not any church's tradition. Local and universal church

that is in line with Scripture remains true. Tradition in line with Scirpture

is good and true. Keep doing what is good and true and right, and avoiding

anything that is wrong, in local and in universal churches, everyplace.

 

[concretecamper]

History is re-written every day,
for the last several hundred years in fact.

Which history one chooses to believe doesn't matter. Follow JESUS.

I could have said it better myself. How do we know we are following Jesus? Acts 9 shows us that Jesus and His Church are one. His Church as described in Matthew is One, Universal, Visible and Authoritative.

If you do not belong to His Church, you have not Christ.

And as he went on his journey, it came to pass that he drew nigh to Damascus; and suddenly a light from heaven shined round about him. And falling on the ground, he heard a voice saying to him: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? Who said: Who art thou, Lord? And he: I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Before following or joining or even listening to any Church(local and/or universal) on earth,
TEST and PRAY and PRAY and TEST.

Do a google search of the churches name, with key words to see if it has been exposed or not

This is only one small but necessary safeguard to stay away from evil.

Remember the babylon church, the world's government power and the world's religious power
is counterfeit.(will try to look good and right), it will and does always try to

take the place of the local and of the universal church in JESUS.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Google history of religion(local and universal; where someone lives directly, and worldiwde)

too. It is quite an eye opener, < shrugs > , for some.

The history of bloodshed, warfare, executions, by and for religious reasons is

endless reading (literally), but every now and then there is an oasis, a little pool of

living water, a safe haven IN JESUS, BY GOD'S Design, in line with GOD'S WORD and

GOD'S PLAN and GOD'S PURPOSE.

Remember always that most of the world rejects JESUS. Votes don't count.(never did)

 

[Mountainmike]

Is there an Universal Church or just local churches?

Several things to consider.

1/ matthew 16:18 clearly identifies Jesus's church founded on the succession of Peter. With power to bind and loose, elsewhere also given to the apostles acting together

Binding and loosing is power to give inerrant decisions on doctrine, as manifested in councils, indeed without themyou would not have a New Testament,

So you must take council decisions as inspired

2/ the nicean Constantinople creed - which is a pronouncement of a council - defines the marks of the church, one you queried.

One, holy, catholic, apostolic.
So the ( true) church is one and universal

In history - It was not given a name - only description " universal" because ( other than groups identified as heretical e.g. Gnostics, arians) it was one until schisms occurred, at which point that founded on Peter so Jesus's church was called " Roman" catholic, later becoming a proper name.

Indeed those councils recognised the " primacy of honour " of Rome, till the " orthodox" split away to do their own thing.

2/ before considering the church as just a spiritual union , study 1 Timothy 3:15 which clearly states that the church

Is " the household of God" which we know from frequent reference in OT means physical church

And there is also given its role
as the " foundation , pillar, bulwark of truth"


Which you will find impossible to reconcile with either sola scriptura or solo scriptura, inventions of the reformation, wholly at odds with how doctrine was passed in the early church by paradosis - handing down - tradition


One final point - I do not know if you have ever studied the catholic catechism, but it is structured around such as the nicean creed, analysing the meaning of it, with reference to scripture and early fathers,

 

[kepha31]

Independent Evangelical churches follow the Baptist Successionist idea that the early church was de-centralized. They like to imagine that the early Christians met in their homes for Bible study and prayer, and that in this pure form they existed independently of any central authority. It is easy to imagine that long ago in the ancient world transportation and communication was rare and difficult and that no form of centralized church authority could have existed even if it was desirable.

The most straightforward reading of the Acts of the Apostles shows this to be untrue, and a further reading of early church documents shows this to be no more than a back-projected invention. In the Acts of the Apostles what we find is a church that is immediately centralized in Jerusalem. When Peter has his disturbing vision in which God directs him to admit the Gentiles to the Church, he references back at once to the apostolic leadership in Jerusalem.(Acts 11:2)

The mission of the infant church was directed from Jerusalem, with Barnabas and Agabus being sent to Antioch (Acts 11:22,27) The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) was convened to decide on the Gentile decision and a letter of instruction was sent to the new churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. (Acts 15:23) We see Philip, John Mark, Barnabas and Paul traveling to and from Jerusalem and providing a teaching and disciplinary link from the new churches back to the centralized church in Jerusalem.

After the martyrdom of James the leadership shifts to Peter and Paul. The authority is not centered on Jerusalem, but through their epistles to the various churches, we see a centralized authority that is vested in Peter and Paul as apostles. This central authority was very soon focused on Rome, so that St Ignatius, a bishop of the church in Antioch would write to the Romans in the year 108 affirming that their church was the one that had the “superior place in love among the churches."

Historian Eamon Duffy (Protestant) suggests that the earliest leadership in the Roman church may have been more conciliar than monarchical because in his letter to the Corinthians, Clement of Rome doesn’t write as the Bishop of Rome, but even if this is so Duffy confirms that the early church believed Clement was the fourth Bishop of Rome and read Clement’s letter as support for centralized Roman authority. He also concedes that by the time of Irenaeus in the mid second century the centralizing role of the Bishop of Rome was already well established. From then on, citation after citation from the apostolic Fathers can be compiled to show that the whole church from Gaul to North Africa and from Syria to Spain affirm the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and Paul.

The acceptance of this centralized authority was a sign of belonging to the one true church so that St Jerome could write to Pope Damasus in the mid 300s, “I think it is my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul… My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!”

We find no evidence of a network of independent, local churches ruled democratically by individual congregations. Instead, from the beginning we find the churches ruled by elders (bishops) So in the New Testament we find the apostles appointing elders in the churches. (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5).
Authority of the First Popes - Standing on my Head

 

[bbbbbbb]

Independent Evangelical churches follow the Baptist Successionist idea that the early church was de-centralized. They like to imagine that the early Christians met in their homes for Bible study and prayer, and that in this pure form they existed independently of any central authority. It is easy to imagine that long ago in the ancient world transportation and communication was rare and difficult and that no form of centralized church authority could have existed even if it was desirable.

The most straightforward reading of the Acts of the Apostles shows this to be untrue, and a further reading of early church documents shows this to be no more than a back-projected invention. In the Acts of the Apostles what we find is a church that is immediately centralized in Jerusalem. When Peter has his disturbing vision in which God directs him to admit the Gentiles to the Church, he references back at once to the apostolic leadership in Jerusalem.(Acts 11:2)

The mission of the infant church was directed from Jerusalem, with Barnabas and Agabus being sent to Antioch (Acts 11:22,27) The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) was convened to decide on the Gentile decision and a letter of instruction was sent to the new churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. (Acts 15:23) We see Philip, John Mark, Barnabas and Paul traveling to and from Jerusalem and providing a teaching and disciplinary link from the new churches back to the centralized church in Jerusalem.

After the martyrdom of James the leadership shifts to Peter and Paul. The authority is not centered on Jerusalem, but through their epistles to the various churches, we see a centralized authority that is vested in Peter and Paul as apostles. This central authority was very soon focused on Rome, so that St Ignatius, a bishop of the church in Antioch would write to the Romans in the year 108 affirming that their church was the one that had the “superior place in love among the churches."

Historian Eamon Duffy (Protestant) suggests that the earliest leadership in the Roman church may have been more conciliar than monarchical because in his letter to the Corinthians, Clement of Rome doesn’t write as the Bishop of Rome, but even if this is so Duffy confirms that the early church believed Clement was the fourth Bishop of Rome and read Clement’s letter as support for centralized Roman authority. He also concedes that by the time of Irenaeus in the mid second century the centralizing role of the Bishop of Rome was already well established. From then on, citation after citation from the apostolic Fathers can be compiled to show that the whole church from Gaul to North Africa and from Syria to Spain affirm the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and Paul.

The acceptance of this centralized authority was a sign of belonging to the one true church so that St Jerome could write to Pope Damasus in the mid 300s, “I think it is my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul… My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!”

We find no evidence of a network of independent, local churches ruled democratically by individual congregations. Instead, from the beginning we find the churches ruled by elders (bishops) So in the New Testament we find the apostles appointing elders in the churches. (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5).
Authority of the First Popes - Standing on my Head

This is a surprising post. I assume that this is not the entire story here. The Catholic Church insists on progressive revelation in order to segue from churches ruled by elders in the first century to the present system of the Pope, cardinals (certainly not a first-century office of the Church), archbishops, bishops, monsignors, priests, etc.)

 

[kepha31]

This is a surprising post. I assume that this is not the entire story here. The Catholic Church insists on progressive revelation in order to segue from churches ruled by elders in the first century to the present system of the Pope, cardinals (certainly not a first-century office of the Church), archbishops, bishops, monsignors, priests, etc.)

The Catholic Church defines doctrinal development as a growth of depth and clarity in the understanding of the truths of divine revelation. It is important to understand that the substantial or essential truths at the core of each doctrine (as part of the one apostolic deposit, given from Christ to the apostles) remain unchanged. The Catholic Church preserves this deposit, and is the Guardian of it. Only the subjective grasp of men increases, without the actual doctrine or dogma changing in an essential way. This is the main distinction to keep in mind when considering development.

This increase is the result of the prayerful reflection of the Church, theological study and research (often occasioned by heretical challenges), practical experience, and the collective wisdom of the Church’s bishops and popes, especially when joined in Ecumenical Councils.

The Church is called the “Body” of Christ often (e.g., Eph 1:22-3), and is compared to a seed that grows into a tree (Mt 13:31-2). Seeds and bodies grow and expand. Yet Protestants tend to see Church and doctrine as more like a statue, subject to pigeon droppings (i.e., so-called Catholic “corruptions”!). This robs the metaphors of Christ of their essential meaning.

It is impossible to claim that no development occurred in Church history, or that it ceased after the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 5th century, etc. (all arbitrary human traditions). The Bible is not absolutely clear in every part, and requires the developing wisdom of the Church.

Doctrines agreed upon by all develop, too. The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325 at the Council of Nicaea, and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381 at the Council of Constantinople. The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon. These decisions of General Councils of the Church were in response to challenging heresies. Why should Protestants accept these authoritative verdicts, but reject the development of the papacy?

It is unrealistic to expect today's episcopate to be an exact duplicate of the 1st century Church, but the essence hasn't changed.

Like many Christian doctrines, the idea of doctrinal development is based on much implicit or indirect scriptural evidence. The best indications are perhaps Mattew 5:17, Matthew 13:31-32, John 14:26, John 16:13, 1 Corinthians 2:9-16, Galatians 4:4, Ephesians 1:10, Ephesians 4:12-15. Furthermore, doctrine clearly develops within Scripture itself (“progressive revelation”).

Some examples would be: doctrines of the afterlife, the Trinity, the Messiah (eventually revealed as God the Son), the Holy Spirit (a Divine Person in the New Testament), the equality of Jews and Gentiles, bodily resurrection, sacrifice of lambs evolving into the sacrifice of Christ, and so forth. Not a single doctrine emerges in the Bible complete with no further need of development.

In general, whenever Holy Scripture refers to the increasing knowledge and maturity of Christians and the Church, an idea very similar to doctrinal development is present. Holy Scripture, then, is in no way hostile to development.

The canon of Scripture itself is an example of developing doctrine...

The idea of doctrinal development is a key, in any case, for understanding why the Catholic Church often appears on the surface as fundamentally different than the early Church. Thoughtful Protestants owe it to themselves and intellectual honesty to ponder this indispensable notion before criticizing the allegedly “unbiblical excesses” of Catholicism.

Indeed, there is a lot of Scripture that would indicate the Trinity and Christology (Jesus as God), but if one doesn’t attempt to put the verses together in a certain systematic way, it wouldn’t jump right out from Scripture. So for that reason the Church had to develop it — and usually in response to heretics.

So, for example, the heretical Nestorians came around and claimed that Jesus was two persons: human and divine. The Church said “no, that’s not true. He is one Person, the God-Man.” The Nestorians speculated falsely about the nature of Mary, but the Church pronounced on the doctrine of Mary, against the Nestorians, giving her the title of Theotokos, which means “God-bearer,” or “Mother of God.” That occurred at the Council of Ephesus in 431. We often find, then, in Church history, heretics coming along and making a new claim. The Church reflects upon it, and rules against it.

Christology was further elaborated upon twenty years later, at the council of Chalcedon in 451. This Council promulgated the notion of the Two Natures of Christ and the Hypostatic Union:, that is, Jesus is God and Man, with no separation. That was in response to the Monophysite heresy, which held that Jesus had one nature. The Church ruled that He had Two Natures. And so, on and on, with all the heretics. The Bible itself, in its own example, demonstrates development.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Catholic Church defines doctrinal development as a growth of depth and clarity in the understanding of the truths of divine revelation. It is important to understand that the substantial or essential truths at the core of each doctrine (as part of the one apostolic deposit, given from Christ to the apostles) remain unchanged. The Catholic Church preserves this deposit, and is the Guardian of it. Only the subjective grasp of men increases, without the actual doctrine or dogma changing in an essential way. This is the main distinction to keep in mind when considering development.

This increase is the result of the prayerful reflection of the Church, theological study and research (often occasioned by heretical challenges), practical experience, and the collective wisdom of the Church’s bishops and popes, especially when joined in Ecumenical Councils.

The Church is called the “Body” of Christ often (e.g., Eph 1:22-3), and is compared to a seed that grows into a tree (Mt 13:31-2). Seeds and bodies grow and expand. Yet Protestants tend to see Church and doctrine as more like a statue, subject to pigeon droppings (i.e., so-called Catholic “corruptions”!). This robs the metaphors of Christ of their essential meaning.

It is impossible to claim that no development occurred in Church history, or that it ceased after the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 5th century, etc. (all arbitrary human traditions). The Bible is not absolutely clear in every part, and requires the developing wisdom of the Church.

Doctrines agreed upon by all develop, too. The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325 at the Council of Nicaea, and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381 at the Council of Constantinople. The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon. These decisions of General Councils of the Church were in response to challenging heresies. Why should Protestants accept these authoritative verdicts, but reject the development of the papacy?

It is unrealistic to expect today's episcopate to be an exact duplicate of the 1st century Church, but the essence hasn't changed.

Like many Christian doctrines, the idea of doctrinal development is based on much implicit or indirect scriptural evidence. The best indications are perhaps Mattew 5:17, Matthew 13:31-32, John 14:26, John 16:13, 1 Corinthians 2:9-16, Galatians 4:4, Ephesians 1:10, Ephesians 4:12-15. Furthermore, doctrine clearly develops within Scripture itself (“progressive revelation”).

Some examples would be: doctrines of the afterlife, the Trinity, the Messiah (eventually revealed as God the Son), the Holy Spirit (a Divine Person in the New Testament), the equality of Jews and Gentiles, bodily resurrection, sacrifice of lambs evolving into the sacrifice of Christ, and so forth. Not a single doctrine emerges in the Bible complete with no further need of development.

In general, whenever Holy Scripture refers to the increasing knowledge and maturity of Christians and the Church, an idea very similar to doctrinal development is present. Holy Scripture, then, is in no way hostile to development.

The canon of Scripture itself is an example of developing doctrine...

The idea of doctrinal development is a key, in any case, for understanding why the Catholic Church often appears on the surface as fundamentally different than the early Church. Thoughtful Protestants owe it to themselves and intellectual honesty to ponder this indispensable notion before criticizing the allegedly “unbiblical excesses” of Catholicism.

Indeed, there is a lot of Scripture that would indicate the Trinity and Christology (Jesus as God), but if one doesn’t attempt to put the verses together in a certain systematic way, it wouldn’t jump right out from Scripture. So for that reason the Church had to develop it — and usually in response to heretics.

So, for example, the heretical Nestorians came around and claimed that Jesus was two persons: human and divine. The Church said “no, that’s not true. He is one Person, the God-Man.” The Nestorians speculated falsely about the nature of Mary, but the Church pronounced on the doctrine of Mary, against the Nestorians, giving her the title of Theotokos, which means “God-bearer,” or “Mother of God.” That occurred at the Council of Ephesus in 431. We often find, then, in Church history, heretics coming along and making a new claim. The Church reflects upon it, and rules against it.

Christology was further elaborated upon twenty years later, at the council of Chalcedon in 451. This Council promulgated the notion of the Two Natures of Christ and the Hypostatic Union:, that is, Jesus is God and Man, with no separation. That was in response to the Monophysite heresy, which held that Jesus had one nature. The Church ruled that He had Two Natures. And so, on and on, with all the heretics. The Bible itself, in its own example, demonstrates development.

Yep, exactly as I anticipated. Thanks for giving us the other side of the story.

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON
This thread has had a clean.
Please stay on topic and refrain from flaming and goading one another.
Whatever your ecclesiology, remember that
"they will know we are Christians by our love."
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[ToBeLoved]

Christ calls the entire body of believers 'the Church'.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The idea of distinct local bodies not in co-operation, communion or actually acknowledging one another but somehow representing the Church on earth cannot be justified. We cannot abstract the Church to some invisible phenomena or list known only to God when since the first it's visibility and inter communion were stressed and seen by all.

So yes, there is a Universal Church, otherwise there is no Church at all. I believe it to be the Orthodox Church.

 

[Albion]

The idea of distinct local bodies not in co-operation, communion or actually acknowledging one another but somehow representing the Church on earth cannot be justified. We cannot abstract the Church to some invisible phenomena or list known only to God when since the first it's visibility and inter communion were stressed and seen by all.

So yes, there is a Universal Church, otherwise there is no Church at all. I believe it to be the Orthodox Church.

As for the distinct -local-not in cooperation point, how many non-EO churches fit that description? Wellllll, it's precious few.

And as for the idea of 'abstracting the church'...there's no doubt that the word church has several different meanings, one of which is the whole body of believers. That doesn't mean the other meanings are invalid or anything of the sort.

 

[ToBeLoved]

The idea of distinct local bodies not in co-operation, communion or actually acknowledging one another but somehow representing the Church on earth cannot be justified. We cannot abstract the Church to some invisible phenomena or list known only to God when since the first it's visibility and inter communion were stressed and seen by all.

So yes, there is a Universal Church, otherwise there is no Church at all. I believe it to be the Orthodox Church.

We do recognize each other, IMHO, in the Nicene Creed which is what determines what is Christian.

I don't see that we don't recognize each other, rather we don't believe the same exactly as each other. But I don't call other denominations non-Christian

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

We do recognize each other, IMHO, in the Nicene Creed which is what determines what is Christian.

I don't see that we don't recognize each other, rather we don't believe the same exactly as each other. But I don't call other denominations non-Christian

To certain extent we recognise each other. I believe Protestants, Catholics and Orientals to be Christian though that does not override what the creed says.

One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The fact that all the different communions do not have a common Eucharist, confess different doctrines at extreme odds with each other and do not participate liturgically or recognise each others full validity is proof of disunity.

Consider Orthodox communion between Greek and Russian Churches, it is not only formal but it is brotherly in that we accept each others sacraments and can participate in the other's worship and Church life and also directly contribute to it. The same could not be said of the Greek Orthodox and the Southern baptist Church.

 

[ToBeLoved]

The fact that all the different communions do not have a common Eucharist, confess different doctrines at extreme odds with each other and do not participate liturgically or recognise each others full validity is proof of disunity.

How is it not a common Eucharist, Christ is the body and the blood. So what's uncommon about that?

 

[ToBeLoved]

confess different doctrines at extreme odds with each other and do not participate liturgically or recognise each others full validity is proof of disunity.

Well to that I could say, why don't you become Interdenominational and attend a Bible Church. If your argument is that we are not one, but you choose a denomination, isn't that kind of the pot calling the kettle black? Not to be rude, I'm just saying.