One true church?

[PeterDona]

Hi,
so, I am a fundamentalist in the sense, that I believe that the Bible is the absolute authority, and I will be willing to change my views after searching the scriptures.

I have been studying bible with a few folks from the group "International Churches of Christ". And they brought up some thoughts, seemingly supported by bible verses. So I would like to know if someone can state a biblical view, as I feel a bit hesitant about embracing what they brought up.

Specifically: Is there only one true church? When Jesus said that He would build His church, was He referring to one single identifiable congregation, and are all the other churches just false congregations?

https://www.bostoncoc.org/study-series/
http://www.reveal.org/library/theology/dandersn.html#ChurchStudy

Verses we went through, were
Col 1:18 - A body. How many heads? And how many bodies?
Eph 2:19-22 - A building, what is the church built upon?
1 Tim 3:15 - pillars
1 Cor 12:12-27 - We are different. We are one.
Rom 12:5 - one anothers members. Here was the point made, that we own each other, just like in a marriage.
Heb 10:23-25 - when we meet, we exhort one another. Meaning we help each other to stay away from sin.
Heb 3:12-14

I think that the group have some good take on moral issues, and that we should help each other to not fall into sin. This is widely not practised today. I like the conservative aspect of the group.

But, I hesitate to believe that they are the one true church. Additionally, I am not convinced about their take on spirituals. I do believe that prophecy and speaking in tongues are for today, even though the first apostles are no more here. I do believe that God still raises people to be apostles, teachers, prophets, and so on.

 

[Gregory the NonTheologian]

Hi,
so, I am a fundamentalist in the sense, that I believe that the Bible is the absolute authority, and I will be willing to change my views after searching the scriptures.

I have been studying bible with a few folks from the group "International Churches of Christ". And they brought up some thoughts, seemingly supported by bible verses. So I would like to know if someone can state a biblical view, as I feel a bit hesitant about embracing what they brought up.

Specifically: Is there only one true church? When Jesus said that He would build His church, was He referring to one single identifiable congregation, and are all the other churches just false congregations?

https://www.bostoncoc.org/study-series/
http://www.reveal.org/library/theology/dandersn.html#ChurchStudy

Verses we went through, were
Col 1:18 - A body. How many heads? And how many bodies?
Eph 2:19-22 - A building, what is the church built upon?
1 Tim 3:15 - pillars
1 Cor 12:12-27 - We are different. We are one.
Rom 12:5 - one anothers members. Here was the point made, that we own each other, just like in a marriage.
Heb 10:23-25 - when we meet, we exhort one another. Meaning we help each other to stay away from sin.
Heb 3:12-14

I think that the group have some good take on moral issues, and that we should help each other to not fall into sin. This is widely not practised today. I like the conservative aspect of the group.

But, I hesitate to believe that they are the one true church. Additionally, I am not convinced about their take on spirituals. I do believe that prophecy and speaking in tongues are for today, even though the first apostles are no more here. I do believe that God still raises people to be apostles, teachers, prophets, and so on.

There was essentially one united Church from the time of the Apostles up until the year 431, when some eastern Christians broke away because of a dispute over the nature of Christ. There was second break by other eastern Christians in 451 for similar reasons, but by a different group. But the largest break occurred in the early 11th century (although the rift started earlier) when the Church of Rome on one side and the Orthodox Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch on the other separated from each other because of disputes over both theology and the authority of the Pope. So by the 11th century there were four main "Churches":

- The Nestorian Church, also called the Church of the East, that had separated in 431
- The Oriental Orthodox Church, that had separated in 451
- The Roman Catholic Church, that had broken off in 1054
- The Eastern Orthodox Church, which retained most of the remaining Christians not belonging to the previous three

To complicate things, the Roman Catholic Church had its own schisms 500 years after the east and west broke off, starting with Luther in Germany in the 16th century, but quickly yielding additional groups with different theologies. The Church of England (also known as the Anglican or Episcopal Church) also split from Rome, but for mostly political rather than theological reasons under Henry VIII in the 16th century.

All of this having been said, the Church was united as "one, true Church" as you would say in the first few centuries after Christ, although it was constantly combatting heresies of various groups. In 325, the local churches within "the Church" affirmed a statement of faith which included a belief in "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church", so the long winded answer to your question is that at least until this time there seems to have existed "one true Church" that Christians believed in.

I think the Scriptures you quote are apt. Others that we might consider are below:

The Church is One
[VERSE=Ephesians 4:4-6,RSV]There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call,one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.[/VERSE][VERSE=John 17:20-21,RSV]I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.[/VERSE]

The Church is Holy
[VERSE=Ephesians 5:25-27,RSV]Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish[/VERSE][VERSE=Romans 11:16,RSV]If the dough offered as first fruits is holy, so is the whole lump; and if the root is holy, so are the branches.[/VERSE][VERSE=Romans 6:22,RSV]But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life[/VERSE][VERSE=1 Timothy 3:15,RSV]You may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth[/VERSE]

The Church is Universal ("Catholic") - Universal in both space and time
[VERSE=Ephesians 1:23,RSV]and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church,which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all.[/VERSE][VERSE=Matthew 28:19-20,RSV]Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.[/VERSE][VERSE=John 14:16,RSV]And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever[/VERSE][VERSE=1 Corinthians 11:26,ASV]For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come.[/VERSE]

The Church is Apostolic - faithful to the teaching of the Apostles
[VERSE=1 Corinthians 4:1,RSV]This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God[/VERSE][VERSE=1 Corinthians 14:40,RSV]All things should be done decently and in order[/VERSE][VERSE=1 John 1:3,RSV]That which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ[/VERSE][VERSE=Ephesians 2:20,RSV]So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone[/VERSE][VERSE=Revelation 21:14,RSV]And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.[/VERSE]

 

[1watchman]

Hi,
so, I am a fundamentalist in the sense, that I believe that the Bible is the absolute authority, and I will be willing to change my views after searching the scriptures.

I have been studying bible with a few folks from the group "International Churches of Christ". And they brought up some thoughts, seemingly supported by bible verses. So I would like to know if someone can state a biblical view, as I feel a bit hesitant about embracing what they brought up.

Specifically: Is there only one true church? When Jesus said that He would build His church, was He referring to one single identifiable congregation, and are all the other churches just false congregations?

First, I believe you can get a thorough reply to such questions at the sound site at www.biblecounsel.net. The ICOC is, of course, just another denominated sect of christendom which supports a particular doctrine. There may be true Christians within such sects, but the format of such independent gatherings contribute to division of God's one testimony worldwide, by not holding to Bible-only and the truth of "one body in Christ" and "no schism in the body" as God enjoins His saints.

The basic question you raise is about God's Church ---the Bride of Christ, and there is only one in the world; and all true Christian assemblies should be local gatherings in unity of this universal company of "born again" believers. Sectarianism is not of God, only contrived religious systems to please the flesh of various ideologies. A biblical Christian fellowship is not of perfect people, but a true representation of God's testimony, and thus not a sect. A truly scriptural local fellowship anywhere is that in the world which is those who appreciate "unity of the Faith" as God states.

Write me if you would like to speak further to me on this. By the way, I know about a sound Bible-only gathering in Denmark. Look up always!

 

[Wgw]

First, I believe you can get a thorough reply to such questions at the sound site at www.biblecounsel.net. The ICOC is, of course, just another denominated sect of christendom which supports a particular doctrine. There may be true Christians within such sects, but the format of such independent gatherings contribute to division of God's one testimony worldwide, by not holding to Bible-only and the truth of "one body in Christ" and "no schism in the body" as God enjoins His saints.

The basic question you raise is about God's Church ---the Bride of Christ, and there is only one in the world; and all true Christian assemblies should be local gatherings in unity of this universal company of "born again" believers. Sectarianism is not of God, only contrived religious systems to please the flesh of various ideologies. A biblical Christian fellowship is not of perfect people, but a true representation of God's testimony, and thus not a sect. A truly scriptural local fellowship anywhere is that in the world which is those who appreciate "unity of the Faith" as God states.

Write me if you would like to speak further to me on this. By the way, I know about a sound Bible-only gathering in Denmark. Look up always!

One problem with thos approach it would seem is that the questions that can arise between "Bible believers" over what the Bible means.

I myself believe emphatically in the Bible as the unique divinely revealed Scripture, that describes accurately the nature of God, and the economy of salvation through Jesus Christ. Yet I fear many "Bible believers" would accuse me of idolatry and paganism due to the iconographic theology and liturgical praxis of my denomination, which I regard as Biblically based, yet they disagree.

Interestingly even as this crypto-Sectarianism rages on, the divisions between the four ancient apostolic churches are healing. They never were entirely black and white, which is why the Assyrian St. Isaac managed to be venerated by all four groups, and also why Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox liturgics contain substantial commonality that post dates Chalcedon. The most severe divisions were primarily engendered by incidents involving forced conversion of Orthodox and Assyrians by the Roman Catholics.

 

[miamited]

Hi PD,

The answer to your first question, as I understand the Scriptures, is 'yes'. However, the 'church' identified by Jesus is not any particular denomination as fellowships are wont to identify themselves with on the earth. The 'ekklesia' or 'church' is merely the body of born again believers living upon the earth at any particular time. These people will likely find a place where they can worship God corporately within a denominational, or non-denominational fellowship of Christians. Not all Christians will receive God's promise of eternal life. All those who are born again will.

The answer to your second question, as I understand the Scriptures, is that the only way you will ever be able to tell whether any fellowship, which you probably define as church, is a false fellowship, is in studying what they teach and believe. Of course, in this I am speaking of Christian fellowships. If you decide to worship with a muslim fellowship you will be with a false 'church'.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Wgw]

Hi PD,

The answer to your first question, as I understand the Scriptures, is 'yes'. However, the 'church' identified by Jesus is not any particular denomination as fellowships are wont to identify themselves with on the earth. The 'ekklesia' or 'church' is merely the body of born again believers living upon the earth at any particular time. These people will likely find a place where they can worship God corporately within a denominational, or non-denominational fellowship of Christians. Not all Christians will receive God's promise of eternal life. All those who are born again will.

The answer to your second question, as I understand the Scriptures, is that the only way you will ever be able to tell whether any fellowship, which you probably define as church, is a false fellowship, is in studying what they teach and believe. Of course, in this I am speaking of Christian fellowships. If you decide to worship with a muslim fellowship you will be with a false 'church'.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Your first paragraph describes Invisible Church ecclesiology. I personally regard this as less compelling than either the Orhodox or Catholic ecclesiology of a united Eucharistic communion, or the branch ecclesiology of divided but ontologically related eucharistic communions, or the local church ecclesiology stressed by some Protestants centered around eucharistic communion in the local church (or "the fellowship of the Lord's Table"), in that invisible church ecclesiology is non-Eucharistic. It has been I think not undeservedly likened to ecclesiological Nestorianism, in that it divides the physicality of communion from the spirituality of ostensible faith.

Which takes us to your second paragraph. Where do you draw the line? Who fits into and falls outside of your model? You cite Muslims, and that case is obvious, but what about Unitarians? Orthodox like me who reject your ecclesiology, or Catholics? Adventists who regard non-observance of a Saturday sabbath as sinful? Episcopalians who celebrate gay marriages?

I wish I could subscribe to an invisible church ecclesiology as I really do not want to have to draw the line in a mammer that appears sectarian, but there are simply too many problems. I am not complelely happy with any of the ecclesiologies outlined, however, invisible church theology is particularly problematoc because it is alluring to Christiams who do not wish to be sectarian, like me, yet it completely deprecates the concept of any sort of coherent Eucharistic unity, which seems very troubling because the Lord's Supper is, or should be, the focal point of the ekklesia.

 

[miamited]

Your first paragraph describes Invisible Church ecclesiology. I personally regard this as less compelling than either the Orhodox or Catholic ecclesiology of a united Eucharistic communion, or the branch ecclesiology of divided but ontologically related eucharistic communions, or the local church ecclesiology stressed by some Protestants centered around eucharistic communion in the local church (or "the fellowship of the Lord's Table"), in that invisible church ecclesiology is non-Eucharistic. It has been I think not undeservedly likened to ecclesiological Nestorianism, in that it divides the physicality of communion from the spirituality of ostensible faith.

Which takes us to your second paragraph. Where do you draw the line? Who fits into and falls outside of your model? You cite Muslims, and that case is obvious, but what about Unitarians? Orthodox like me who reject your ecclesiology, or Catholics? Adventists who regard non-observance of a Saturday sabbath as sinful? Episcopalians who celebrate gay marriages?

I wish I could subscribe to an invisible church ecclesiology as I really do not want to have to draw the line in a mammer that appears sectarian, but there are simply too many problems. I am not complelely happy with any of the ecclesiologies outlined, however, invisible church theology is particularly problematoc because it is alluring to Christiams who do not wish to be sectarian, like me, yet it completely deprecates the concept of any sort of coherent Eucharistic unity, which seems very troubling because the Lord's Supper is, or should be, the focal point of the ekklesia.

Hi wgw,

Man, I gotta tell you. You have me beat absolutely hands down on the use of great big, highly educated ten cent words. I don't have much of a clue what any of it says, but it sure looks and sounds smart when I read it. Based on just your ability to use such words, why I have no option but to believe that you're telling me the truth because it sounds so smart.

However, I do have one question. Do you have Scripture that supports your understanding that 'the Lord's Supper is, or should be, the focal point of the ekklesia'. Did Jesus ever say that? Did Paul ever write it? Did any of the other first disciples happen to mention such an understanding in any of their writings? I would just ask that you please tell me what great and learned person, place or thing taught you that the Lord's supper is, or should be, the focal point of the ekklesia.

Out here in the unlearned sticks where I live with just my bible, I've just always thought that the purpose of the ekklesia was for each one to love God with all that is in them. The communion, as introduced and instituted by Jesus at the last supper, was merely something that he asked us to do, not with any specific regularity, and that when we do it, we do it for the purpose of remembering him and what he has done for us. To be mindful of what great cost our salvation cost him. To be thankful that he was obedient unto death and sorrowful for the suffering and pain that he endured for me.

So, I'd be interested in reading your evidence to bolster your statement.

God bless you,
In Christ, Ted

 

[Wgw]

Hi wgw,

Man, I gotta tell you. You have me beat absolutely hands down on the use of great big, highly educated ten cent words. I don't have much of a clue what any of it says, but it sure looks and sounds smart when I read it. Based on just your ability to use such words, why I have no option but to believe that you're telling me the truth because it sounds so smart.

However, I do have one question. Do you have Scripture that supports your understanding that 'the Lord's Supper is, or should be, the focal point of the ekklesia'. Did Jesus ever say that? Did Paul ever write it? Did any of the other first disciples happen to mention such an understanding in any of their writings? I would just ask that you please tell me what great and learned person, place or thing taught you that the Lord's supper is, or should be, the focal point of the ekklesia.

Out here in the unlearned sticks where I live with just my bible, I've just always thought that the purpose of the ekklesia was for each one to love God with all that is in them. The communion, as introduced and instituted by Jesus at the last supper, was merely something that he asked us to do, not with any specific regularity, and that when we do it, we do it for the purpose of remembering him and what he has done for us. To be mindful of what great cost our salvation cost him. To be thankful that he was obedient unto death and sorrowful for the suffering and pain that he endured for me.

So, I'd be interested in reading your evidence to bolster your statement.

God bless you,
In Christ, Ted

The idea of Eucharistic communion as central to ecclesiology is clearly expressed by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17. Actually 1 Corinthians 10-12 are particularly vital both in terms of ecclesiology and Eucharistic theology.

 

[miamited]

Hi again wgw,

Well, here is the passage that you particularly reference. I don't agree that it speaks to the idea of Eucharistic communion as 'central to ecclesiology'.

Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.


(10)
For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert. Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: "The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in pagan revelry." We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did--and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. We should not test the Lord, as some of them did--and were killed by snakes. And do not grumble, as some of them did--and were killed by the destroying angel. These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come. So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall! No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it. Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry. I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? Do I mean then that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons. Are we trying to arouse the Lord's jealousy? Are we stronger than he? Everything is permissible"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"--but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it." If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake--the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for? So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God--even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

(11)
Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ. I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you. Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--nor do the churches of God. In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not! For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world. So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. And when I come I will give further directions.

continued

 

[miamited]

continuation:
(12)
Now about spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant. You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols. Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit. There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men. Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines. The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with 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. Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues ? Do all interpret? But eagerly desire the greater gifts. And now I will show you the most excellent way.

I often find it a worthy practice to take out all of the chapter and verse divisions, although I have identified the chapters above. When we do that, we are more apt to understand the writing as not just a bunch of disjointed thoughts strewn down on a piece of paper like a list of groceries that one needs from the store. We see more clearly that the writing of Paul is much the same as when you and I write something. The sentences flow continually about and regarding a subject until we find some sort of identifier that the writer has now moved on to another subject. Paul is teaching on sin and how it has been carried on even among the Israelites in the early days of God's making Himself known to His children in Egypt.

He recounts how God sent a destroyer among the people; some snakes among the people; and even tells of the day that Moses commanded all those who stood with God to strap on their swords and went throughout the community killing 23,000 of their own brothers and family. The point being that even among His children, God does not take sin lightly. He then further drives home this point to the new covenant believers by reminding them that when they partake of the cup and the bread, they are actually taking upon themselves the body and blood of Christ. Because of this they need to strive for holiness in their living. Basically telling them, that look, you can't go around claiming to be followers of Christ and enticing sin. When you participate in the communion and drink of the fruit of the vine and the bread, you are symbolizing the taking of Christ's blood and flesh. If you then go out and sin, you are making unholy that which is holy.

Surely you do, but I'm not convinced that this is in any way making any point about the communion being the 'focal point of the ekklesia' It is making the point that the communion is something that is holy and by enticing sin in our lives while also partaking of the communion of the saints, we are in fact desecrating the holiness of the communion. We are remembering Jesus and all that he has done for us; we are grateful and thankful for all that he has done for us; we are remembering and being mindful of his testimony -- and then we are going right out and sinning to test God. Paul says, "Don't do that!"

Then Paul begins to teach about some of the things that are done in the actual worship fellowship. He mentions the necessity of men not covering their heads and women covering their heads and gives reasons why this is so. Then he teaches them about the first communion. That it was begun on the night of Jesus' death. That whenever we participate in the communion we are doing so as a remembrance offering to the Lord and when we do partake in an unworthy manner that we are bringing down judgment on ourselves. This ties in perfectly with what he had just taught immediately before. Don't partake of the Lord's supper in an unworthy manner and don't partake of the Lord's supper and then go out and sin. For me, it doesn't seem to be teaching anything about the communion being the 'focal point of our fellowship', but rather teaching us to honor the purpose of the practice.

I would agree that in those fellowship services in which we participate in a communion supper, we should certainly understand the purpose of the communion and honor the Lord in so doing. I don't agree that every time a fellowship gathers that the Scriptures teach that we must hold a communion service as the focal point of that service. For me, a communion service needs to be revered. It should never become something that we just do every time we come together, but it should be a special time in which we do spend the entire time of our fellowship in reverent holiness of what we are doing. Most of the fellowships where I have seen the practice of communion every time they meet, I'd be surprised if the congregation spends 15 minutes on the service from start to finish. Many get it done in less than 5. With that little bit of time and regular repetition, it's not much wonder that Donald Trump describes the communion as he does. He is a valid product of what that whiz-bang method of communion likely produces.

God bless you,

In Christ, Ted

 

[Wgw]

continuation:
(12)
Now about spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant. You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols. Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit. There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men. Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines. The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with 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. Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues ? Do all interpret? But eagerly desire the greater gifts. And now I will show you the most excellent way.

I often find it a worthy practice to take out all of the chapter and verse divisions, although I have identified the chapters above. When we do that, we are more apt to understand the writing as not just a bunch of disjointed thoughts strewn down on a piece of paper like a list of groceries that one needs from the store. We see more clearly that the writing of Paul is much the same as when you and I write something. The sentences flow continually about and regarding a subject until we find some sort of identifier that the writer has now moved on to another subject. Paul is teaching on sin and how it has been carried on even among the Israelites in the early days of God's making Himself known to His children in Egypt.

He recounts how God sent a destroyer among the people; some snakes among the people; and even tells of the day that Moses commanded all those who stood with God to strap on their swords and went throughout the community killing 23,000 of their own brothers and family. The point being that even among His children, God does not take sin lightly. He then further drives home this point to the new covenant believers by reminding them that when they partake of the cup and the bread, they are actually taking upon themselves the body and blood of Christ. Because of this they need to strive for holiness in their living. Basically telling them, that look, you can't go around claiming to be followers of Christ and enticing sin. When you participate in the communion and drink of the fruit of the vine and the bread, you are symbolizing the taking of Christ's blood and flesh. If you then go out and sin, you are making unholy that which is holy.

Surely you do, but I'm not convinced that this is in any way making any point about the communion being the 'focal point of the ekklesia' It is making the point that the communion is something that is holy and by enticing sin in our lives while also partaking of the communion of the saints, we are in fact desecrating the holiness of the communion. We are remembering Jesus and all that he has done for us; we are grateful and thankful for all that he has done for us; we are remembering and being mindful of his testimony -- and then we are going right out and sinning to test God. Paul says, "Don't do that!"

Then Paul begins to teach about some of the things that are done in the actual worship fellowship. He mentions the necessity of men not covering their heads and women covering their heads and gives reasons why this is so. Then he teaches them about the first communion. That it was begun on the night of Jesus' death. That whenever we participate in the communion we are doing so as a remembrance offering to the Lord and when we do partake in an unworthy manner that we are bringing down judgment on ourselves. This ties in perfectly with what he had just taught immediately before. Don't partake of the Lord's supper in an unworthy manner and don't partake of the Lord's supper and then go out and sin. For me, it doesn't seem to be teaching anything about the communion being the 'focal point of our fellowship', but rather teaching us to honor the purpose of the practice.

I would agree that in those fellowship services in which we participate in a communion supper, we should certainly understand the purpose of the communion and honor the Lord in so doing. I don't agree that every time a fellowship gathers that the Scriptures teach that we must hold a communion service as the focal point of that service. For me, a communion service needs to be revered. It should never become something that we just do every time we come together, but it should be a special time in which we do spend the entire time of our fellowship in reverent holiness of what we are doing. Most of the fellowships where I have seen the practice of communion every time they meet, I'd be surprised if the congregation spends 15 minutes on the service from start to finish. Many get it done in less than 5. With that little bit of time and regular repetition, it's not much wonder that Donald Trump describes the communion as he does. He is a valid product of what that whiz-bang method of communion likely produces.

God bless you,

In Christ, Ted

On this point, your post neglects to consider that the early church fathers starting with the first century martyr St. Ignatius, the Patriarch of Antioch famously fed to lions, defined the Church precisely as a eucharistic communion as clearly described by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians. And this was some time before the current scheme of versification appeared.

The ancient church, and the Orthodox and other liturgical churches today, historically divided the books of the Bible into pericopes or lections, which are read on appointed occasions according to a lectionary scheme. Thus the traditional lectionary reading for Maundy Thursday in most churches was 1 Corinthians 11:27-34, until those verses regarding the dangers of partaking while unworthy were dropped in the Novus Ordo Missae and the RCL (and RCL-like system used by the 1979 BCP). The Orthodox still read the entire pericope. There are of course differences between rites, for example, John 1:1-14 is read in the Western Rites as the last Gospel, and on Christmas day, whereas rhe Byzantine Rite / Eastern Orthodox read John 1:1-17 on Pascha.

 

[miamited]

On this point, your post neglects to consider that the early church fathers starting with the first century martyr St. Ignatius, the Patriarch of Antioch famously fed to lions, defined the Church precisely as a eucharistic communion as clearly described by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians. And this was some time before the current scheme of versification appeared.

The ancient church, and the Orthodox and other liturgical churches today, historically divided the books of the Bible into pericopes or lections, which are read on appointed occasions according to a lectionary scheme. Thus the traditional lectionary reading for Maundy Thursday in most churches was 1 Corinthians 11:27-34, until those verses regarding the dangers of partaking while unworthy were dropped in the Novus Ordo Missae and the RCL (and RCL-like system used by the 1979 BCP). The Orthodox still read the entire pericope. There are of course differences between rites, for example, John 1:1-14 is read in the Western Rites as the last Gospel, and on Christmas day, whereas rhe Byzantine Rite / Eastern Orthodox read John 1:1-17 on Pascha.

Hi wgw,

He may well have done. Although in skimming over his letters to the churches of his day, I can't find any reference other than a mention to the church in Philadelphia that there be only one Eucharist, that would support your position that the focus of the fellowship of believers should be the Eucharist. BTW, this discussion between us is not about the mention of taking the communion in an unworthy manner. That is a wholly different issue. The reason for my questions to you concerns your claim that the Eucharist should be the focus of the fellowship meetings. I would like to stay on point if possible.

If you'd like to read over the research that I read, here's the link:

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3836

Anyway, we're off the OP's subject. Now you understand my position and I yours.

God bless you.
In Christ, ted

 

[Wgw]

Hi wgw,

He may well have done. Although in skimming over his letters to the churches of his day, I can't find any reference other than a mention to the church in Philadelphia that there be only one Eucharist, that would support your position that the focus of the fellowship of believers should be the Eucharist. BTW, this discussion between us is not about the mention of taking the communion in an unworthy manner. That is a wholly different issue. The reason for my questions to you concerns your claim that the Eucharist should be the focus of the fellowship meetings. I would like to stay on point if possible.

If you'd like to read over the research that I read, here's the link:

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3836

Anyway, we're off the OP's subject. Now you understand my position and I yours.

God bless you.
In Christ, ted

My point in mentioning 1 Cor was simply to demonstrate an example of a lection.

 

[miamited]

My point in mentioning 1 Cor was simply to demonstrate an example of a lection.

Hi wgw,

You know, for someone who prides himself in using great big words, your ability to frame and defend your position seems awfully weak. Here we are having a discussion in which I asked you for proof from the Scriptures that supports your position, and now a few posts into it you're telling me that there was really no point in your referencing the particular Scripture, that I think anyone would understand you were using to attempt to answer my question, you are telling me that your only real point in referencing the particular Scripture was to 'demonstrate an example of a lection'. Really? BTW, I looked it up. It means 'teaching'. Why anyone would decide to write the words 'a lection', which merely means teaching gives me a gut feeling that you really strive to puff yourself up before people with big words so that the unknowing would defer to exactly what I wrote before: You sound so smart, you must be right. You could just as easily have written the word 'teaching'. It's a word readily and easily understood by the simple such as myself.

In my work with the super educated such as college professors and great scientists, I have found that so very, very often their great knowledge blinds them to the simple truths of the Scriptures. God didn't write to us in some super smart and highly educated way. His truth is explained simply. With simple words that all can understand. Your work, on the other hand, is reserved for those like you who revel in showing others how totally more learned they are by their great knowledge.

Just so you know, it's wasted effort on your part in dealing with me. I'm a simple man with simple faith. Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

I honestly believe that your choice of handle 'disdainful critic of heresy' is right about you in one regard. You do seem to be quite disdainful.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Wgw]

Hi wgw,

You know, for someone who prides himself in using great big words, your ability to frame and defend your position seems awfully weak. Here we are having a discussion in which I asked you for proof from the Scriptures that supports your position, and now a few posts into it you're telling me that there was really no point in your referencing the particular Scripture, that I think anyone would understand you were using to attempt to answer my question, you are telling me that your only real point in referencing the particular Scripture was to 'demonstrate an example of a lection'. Really? BTW, I looked it up. It means 'teaching'. Why anyone would decide to write the words 'a lection', which merely means teaching gives me a gut feeling that you really strive to puff yourself up before people with big words so that the unknowing would defer to exactly what I wrote before: You sound so smart, you must be right. You could just as easily have written the word 'teaching'. It's a word readily and easily understood by the simple such as myself.

In my work with the super educated such as college professors and great scientists, I have found that so very, very often their great knowledge blinds them to the simple truths of the Scriptures. God didn't write to us in some super smart and highly educated way. His truth is explained simply. With simple words that all can understand. Your work, on the other hand, is reserved for those like you who revel in showing others how totally more learned they are by their great knowledge.

Just so you know, it's wasted effort on your part in dealing with me. I'm a simple man with simple faith. Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

I honestly believe that your choice of handle 'disdainful critic of heresy' is right about you in one regard. You do seem to be quite disdainful.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

On the subject of the word "lection," this word in the context of liturgiology refers to the specific appointed scripture lessons. Many Christians are unfamiliar with them, in that theyn either attend parishes which operate on the basis of lectio continua or other systems, or else they are simply unfamiliar with how the liturgy actually works. My argument as to the ancient Church adopting an ecclesiological model of Eucharistic communion that did not in any sense depend on an eisegesis of Matthew 16:17 required illustrating how the ancient church used and worked with the Bible, on the basis of appointed lections corresponding to pericopes that have a certain conceptual integrity (interestingly, the Jews, both Rabinnical and Karaite, also use a lectionary system, and I think it not unreasonable to assume that this predated the early church and was the basis for the Christisn lectionary).

My view is that the early Christians were not in any sense eisegetes, but rather, by virtue of the lectionary system being the primary way in which they approached scripture (owing to the scarcity of Biblical manuscripts), were inclined to receive these teachings holistically. On this basis, I feel that all ecclesiological schemes must, at a minimum, relate to or be explainable within the concept of a eucharistic communion as per the faith of the early Church, which I see local church ecclesiology of the Baptists and many Protestants achieving, but which I do not see in the case of an invisble church ecclesiology that does not contain at its heart the idea of eucharistic communion.

 

[miamited]

Hi wgw,

Ok, I read your response.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[PeterDona]

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Thanks, Ted, and thank you all others, who have contributed.

Concerning the scriptures that I reference, I am particularly worried on the use of 1 Cor 12: 12-27. Those verses are in the middle of a dispute on spirituals (often translated "spiritual gifts"), both at the beginning and the end of 1 Cor 12 we see this theme. Therefore I conclude that it is wrong to use the verses 'out of context' to just mean, that you have to be available to the church - or whatever meaning is intended by the icoc.

Also, I have a concern about the particular group's idea that they are the one true church. I believe that the parable of the wheat and the tares teaches us that in all churches there will be true and false christians, if we can even use such words as true and false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Tares
Hm, well Jesus does speak about the field being the world and not the church. That is very interesting. Time to refine my ideas, maybe.

But anyway, many churches believe that they are the only ones, but we can see from the parable that the good seed is all that is sown by Jesus, so it does not reference a specific organisation, but rather all that have been born again.

 

[throughfierytrial]

Hi,
so, I am a fundamentalist in the sense, that I believe that the Bible is the absolute authority, and I will be willing to change my views after searching the scriptures.

I have been studying bible with a few folks from the group "International Churches of Christ". And they brought up some thoughts, seemingly supported by bible verses. So I would like to know if someone can state a biblical view, as I feel a bit hesitant about embracing what they brought up.

Specifically: Is there only one true church? When Jesus said that He would build His church, was He referring to one single identifiable congregation, and are all the other churches just false congregations?

https://www.bostoncoc.org/study-series/
http://www.reveal.org/library/theology/dandersn.html#ChurchStudy

Verses we went through, were
Col 1:18 - A body. How many heads? And how many bodies?
Eph 2:19-22 - A building, what is the church built upon?
1 Tim 3:15 - pillars
1 Cor 12:12-27 - We are different. We are one.
Rom 12:5 - one anothers members. Here was the point made, that we own each other, just like in a marriage.
Heb 10:23-25 - when we meet, we exhort one another. Meaning we help each other to stay away from sin.
Heb 3:12-14

I think that the group have some good take on moral issues, and that we should help each other to not fall into sin. This is widely not practised today. I like the conservative aspect of the group.

But, I hesitate to believe that they are the one true church. Additionally, I am not convinced about their take on spirituals. I do believe that prophecy and speaking in tongues are for today, even though the first apostles are no more here. I do believe that God still raises people to be apostles, teachers, prophets, and so on.

Greetings!
I'll just add that the one true church is the body of true believers scattered about the world and sometimes found even in some pretty strange churches as well. Physical churches are made up of both true believers and unbelievers. Since believing is a condition of the heart which is not always readily assessed with a certainty it is in my church referred to as the invisible church...all true believers known with a certainty only by God.
Passages:
4 For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. --Jude :4

9 I know your afflictions and your poverty—yet you are rich! I know about the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. --Revelation 2:9

 

[Wgw]

Greetings!
I'll just add that the one true church is the body of true believers scattered about the world and sometimes found even in some pretty strange churches as well. Physical churches are made up of both true believers and unbelievers. Since believing is a condition of the heart which is not always readily assessed with a certainty it is in my church referred to as the invisible church...all true believers known with a certainty only by God.
Passages:
4 For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. --Jude :4

9 I know your afflictions and your poverty—yet you are rich! I know about the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. --Revelation 2:9

This invisible church ecclesiology is extremely unsatisfactory for reasons I outlined above; namely, it is not centered around eucharistic communion, and the distinction between believers and non believers is anomalous and troubling, particularly in your case. What is a believer? Where do we draw the line?

I am not happy with extremely sectarian models of ecclesiology, by the way; what I object to with the approach you outline is the manner in which it seemingly ignores the communion of the Lord's Supper.

 

[throughfierytrial]

This invisible church ecclesiology is extremely unsatisfactory for reasons I outlined above; namely, it is not centered around eucharistic communion, and the distinction between believers and non believers is anomalous and troubling, particularly in your case. What is a believer? Where do we draw the line?

I am not happy with extremely sectarian models of ecclesiology, by the way; what I object to with the approach you outline is the manner in which it seemingly ignores the communion of the Lord's Supper.

I was answering the question of what the true church is in that post, not what communion is. We can see from the passages I quote that we did and always will have...despite our best efforts to exclude them...unbelievers in among the believers in a visible church.