Responding to Protestant claims about "the Church"

[Dietrich Johnson]

I am looking for help in understanding the correct view in contrast to the claims made in this video.

 

[sandman]

My sentiments exactly..... I have been teaching that for years. It shouldn’t be just a Protestant claim... it should be a Christian claim.
The church structures shouldn’t be….Home fellowships is where the growth is at, the needs are met and where the Word can emanate out from.
Just my personal opinion ....and God's also

 

[Albion]

This guy is making a whole lecture out of what, to most Protestants, is just a quip.

The standard Protestant view of the nature of the church is not that "it isn't a building," but that all true believers, regardless of denominational affiliation, constitute the true church. That's opposed by Catholics and Orthodox Christians and some others who say that the institutional church, their particular ecclesial organization, is "the church."

 

[SkyWriting]

Any church would be far better off with no buildings. No doubt. The worst of all churches revolves around buildings and overhead. Especially outrageous spending in the past on now mostly empty buildings.

 

[HTacianas]

I am looking for help in understanding the correct view in contrast to the claims made in this video.

Admittedly I did not watch the video in its entirety. I watched the first few minutes of it and then skipped to the "final thoughts".

But to answer your question, the Church became a building when the first Church building was built. As the video states, those buildings did not exist until around 300 or so AD. They didn't exist until 300 AD because Christianity was by and large outlawed in the Roman Empire until that time and Christians were forced to gather in private. When Constantine made Christianity legal, Christians came out of hiding and began to build Churches. Many of them were converted pagan temples*.

The creator of the video makes the same mistake made by any number of small protestant groups including the Jehovah's Witnesses. They think that Christianity ended at the conclusion of the new testament and they somehow need to restore it to its original form, as they define it.

*1Co 15:25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.

 

[St_Worm2]

The creator of the video makes the same mistake made by any number of small protestant groups including the Jehovah's Witnesses. They think that Christianity ended at the conclusion of the new testament and they somehow need to restore it to its original form, as they define it.

Just FYI, the Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians, neither are they Protestants.

God bless you!

--David

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

Please read and abide by each forum's Statement of Purpose; Statement of Purpose threads are sticky threads located at the top of the forum's page. Not all forums have a Statement of Purpose thread.​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[ArmyMatt]

he refutes his own argument from the beginning. if the earliest Christians were still meeting in the Temple, they were meeting in a place with holy rooms and spaces. you can’t seek to follow the early Church, but then chalk up what you disagree with as early Church errors.

 

[Veritas1]

I don't see the problem. I may have to look at the Debate on the Orthodox Church to see what the Protestant claims are about the Church. I am a Catholic and have no issue with the word Church referring both to the assembly of the People of God and to the building. The phrase 'going to Church' is surely shorthand for 'going to participate in worship with other members of the local church'. At the time of Christ, a pious Jew was expected to pray and bless God throughout the day wherever they were. Jews gathered in Synagogues for study and certain types of prayer; they gathered in the Temple for certain sacrificial rituals; they gathered in their homes for blessing, prayer and certain ritual meals, such as the celebration of the Passover meal. Both Jesus and his disciples preached in the local Synagogues. this is where many Jews first became believers. For most of the first century, the Jewish followers of Jesus continued to frequent the Synagogues. Such would have been the case when James wrote his letter, in which we read: 'For if a person with gold rings and in fine clothes comes into your assembly, and if a poor person in dirty clothes also comes in, and if you take notice of the one wearing the fine clothes and say, "Have a seat here, please", while to the one who is poor you say, "Stand there", or "Sit at my feet", have you not made distinctions among yourselves?' (James 2:2-4). These 'reformers' within Judaism then had to face the introduction of a 'Malediction' against them into one of the central prayers of the daily Jewish service in the synagogues. It read: 'For the apostates let there be no hope, and uproot the kingdom of arrogance, speedily and in our days. May the Nazarenes and the sectarians perish as in a moment. Let them be blotted out of the book of life, and not be written together with the righteous'. This took place about the year 80AD, shortly after the destruction of the Temple.

How many times do we read in the Gospels about Jesus entering the home of an outcast or dignitary and sharing a meal with them? And it was in an upper room, a borrowed room, that he celebrated his last ritual Passover meal with his disciples; the same upper room where he appeared to them after His resurrection. And throughout the first century, borrowed rooms served the needs of the followers of Christ. In time, they gathered in the homes of the wealthy, making use of the pool in the atrium for baptisms and the large dining room for the Eucharistic celebration. Interestingly, in Jewish culture the Temple was a male domain, the Synagogue was a mixed domain, while the home was the domain of women. And in Jewish culture, God could not be confined to one place; prayer should and was offered everywhere. With this background, for the first century Christians, the people were more important than the place. The true temple was the assembly, not the building. The Greek word 'ecclesia', which we translate as 'church', did not refer to the structure, but to the believers, who were the 'living stones of a spiritual house, gathered to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (See 1 Peter 2:5).

In time, the homes in which Christians gathered proved to have spacial limitations that required structural modifications that would have disrupted family life. It became inevitable that a community would look for a larger home in which to gather as the community grew in numbers, and in time they would look for a more suitable design and a more permanent place to gather for worship. The city of Edessa in East Syria was flooded in 201AD, and listed among the damaged buildings was 'the holy place of the congregation of the Christians'. This may have been a house renovated to make it a suitable space for worship, or it may have been purpose built. Buildings were transformed into 'domus ecclesiae' - 'house churches' or 'houses of the church'.

Such architectural changes were accompanied by changes in language. The Greek word 'ecclesiae' was originally used to designate the followers of Jesus, and by the third century 'ecclesiae' was beginning to be used as the name of the place where the followers of Jesus gathered together. So, we read in a letter from Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (died 258AD): 'When this man [Celerinus] came to us, beloved brethren, with such honour of the Lord, being honoured even with the testimony and amazement of the very men by whom he had been persecuted, what else was there to do than to plavce him upon the pulpit, that is, upon the tribunal of the church, so that, propped up in the place of highest elevation and conspicuous to the entire congregation for the fame of his honour, he may read the precepts and gospels of the Lord which he follows with such courage and faith'.

As architecture developed, so too did language, and Christians began to use other words besides 'ecclesiae' when speaking or writing about spaces permanently designated for gathering for worship. One of these words is the Greek word 'kuriakon', which literally refers to something 'belonging to the Lord'. And it is from this Greek word that is derived the English word 'church', the Scottish word 'kirk' and the German word 'kirche'. It is from the Greek word 'ecclesiae' that
is derived the French word 'eglise', the Italian word 'chiesa' and the Spanish word 'iglesia'.

Yesterday, Albion wrote: 'The standard Protestant view of the nature of the church is not that "it isn't a building," but that all true believers, regardless of denominational affiliation, constitute the true church. That's opposed by Catholics and Orthodox Christians and some others who say that the institutional church, their particular ecclesial organization, is "the church."
I am a Catholic and would like to correct this comment. To understand what the Catholic Church teaches, you should read 'the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church', also known as 'Lumen Gentium'. This is one of the important documents from the Second Vatican Council.
What does the Catholic Church say about 'the nature of the church'? The nature of the Church is that it is 'one, holy, catholic and apostolic'.

 

[Justin-H.S.]

@Ignatius the Kiwi

I’ll post in this thread since the topics are the same.

The church of people would have survived underground just as they do today in China and did in the early days. Yet the institutions have and have had no trouble openly standing in partnership beside Adversarial spirits like Putin or the WEF to this day. Like the Tempter said to Jesus, all this can be yours. Jesus turned it down but the Institution didn't.

Would Trudeau represent you as much as Biden represents me? I doubt we’d agree to that. Likewise with the Church. We believe we are all sinners. No one is good. No, not one. And yet, you expect the Church which is a spiritual hospital for the sick to be full of perfectly healthy people? Did Jesus not say He was here for the sick? We believe that Jesus was the only perfectly healthy human. If you prefer the framework of a courtroom, why would an innocent need legal counsel (Jesus Christ) before the Judge? Because, we aren’t innocent. Jesus was the only perfectly innocent human. We’re all guilty of sin.

So, the argument that “because some hierarchs were bad throughout Church History therefore the Church was always wrong” is a non-sequitur since you’d agree that the Church was right when including Revelation to the New Testament canon, but rejected the Shepherd of Hermas.

Unless you’re willing to cut all ties with any institution if it fails in any way at any time, I think you’re fighting an uphill battle. For instance, did you stop being a Canadian and start your own country the moment Trudeau went full-Soviet? Why not? Too difficult?

Do you actually know the names of some of those early Christians who lived and died underground during the first three hundred years before the Edict of Milan?

If the Church is just the people and not also the building/hierarchy, why did the early Christians also go to the temple in Jerusalem to worship while it was still standing? Have you seen the catacomb churches?

Just the start of many such questions.

 

[Light of the East]

My sentiments exactly..... I have been teaching that for years. It shouldn’t be just a Protestant claim... it should be a Christian claim.
The church structures shouldn’t be….Home fellowships is where the growth is at, the needs are met and where the Word can emanate out from.
Just my personal opinion ....and God's also

It is your personal opinion. And it is wrong!

Mankind is created into a covenant relationship. In every covenant relationship of mankind, there are certain parameters which exist. One of these is covenant headship. Adam was created as covenant head over mankind, and covenant theologians have postulated that the fall of mankind in the Garden, with its subsequent expulsion, would not have taken place if Adam, as covenant and familial head, had not participated in eating the fruit.

There is no headship in a "home church." The thing that you quite miss is the even with the first Christians meeting in home churches, they were still under headship. A "home church" does not have such headship to which we, as Orthodox believers, are to be obedient. Each man becomes his own little "home pope" of the "home church." This is both nonsense and rebellion of a high degree.

There are five operational principles which make up a working covenant relationship. Number two is the principle of "Hierarchy," or to put it in plain language "who's in charge here?" The covenant headship over all mankind is Christ. He is the man who has taken Adam's place as "the Last Adam" That phrase identifies His headship and role. He is the King of Creation, and within the Suzerainty kingship model of rulership, the Apostles were established as "lesser kings," and went out and established the Gospel throughout the world.

The idea of an "invisible church" in which all people baptized are part of the Church and therefore there is no need of either a physical building or a structured church setting is just a continuation of the rebellion against authority. In this situation, there is no specific voice of truth, no ministry of teaching, no Sacraments, which are central to covenant (for instance, the Eucharist as the Covenant Meal of Restoration). You cannot have truth with thousands of independent voices each teaching something different and calling it truth. There is only one truth about baptism, for instance: it unites us to Christ, removes sin, and is done properly by three-fold immersion. Yet, in Evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism, you can find a wide variety of ideas about baptism, all of which are wrong.

This is the NEED for a structured Church with hierarchical leadership and set praxis of truth. I didn't even watch the video because I came out of that mess and know exactly what this guy is saying.

Church building =

1. Representation of heaven, with the icons reminding us of the "great cloud of witnesses" who are cheering us on in our journey. Incense, such as is found in the Book of Apocalypse.

2. Continuation of Temple worship of the Old Covenant. God nowhere sanctioned worship outside of the Temple to which He gave elaborate plans for its construction.

3. Symbolism within the covenant practices. Baptism = death, burial, and resurrection unto new life. Baptism is the ceremony of covenant making in the New Covenant, replacing circumcision. Confession = repenting of covenant breaking (sin) and restoring the covenant relationship. This must be done with a properly ordained covenant authority. Eucharist = covenant meal of restoration and continuation of what Christ taught the Apostles in John 6. Ordination = establishment of proper authority over the members of the Church. We are not our own authority, unlike the individualistic/narcissistic self-worship of Evangelicalism. We answer to proper authority, both here and at the Judgment Seat. Marriage = recognition of God's proper establishment of marriage. This is why no Orthodox church will ever perform a gay "marriage" ** Without covenant hierarchy to oversee the Church, and left on their own, men are apt to do anything that suits their fancy. Marriage is also one of the important symbolisms of Christ's relationship to His Church and His people.

Outside of a structured covenant relationship, there is anarchy. Outside of Orthodox worship, there is man-made worship. The worship that was given to Moses in the wilderness was so important that God warned Moses not to tamper with it by making his own or anyone else's additions to what God had shown Moses.

Why?

Because it is a picture of eternal truth: Hebrews 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

That word "admonished" is a very strong word. It is akin to God sticking His finger right in Moses' face and sternly and direly warning him not to mess around with the worship that will look like heaven.

Yet Evangelicals have taken their own ideas and call it worship. Sorry I can't be more charitable about this, but them's the facts. There is truth and then there is error. We need a place to worship which reflects heaven's glory, an authority under which to learn truth, and the Sacraments of the New Covenant of God by which we practice the faith "once given to the saints."

** I think of the Russian bishop who, upon learning that one of his priests conducted a "gay marriage," went to the priest and defrocked him, then burned the church to the ground, declared it defiled and unfit for further holy use!

 

[sandman]

It is your personal opinion. And it is wrong!

Mankind is created into a covenant relationship. In every covenant relationship of mankind, there are certain parameters which exist. One of these is covenant headship. Adam was created as covenant head over mankind, and covenant theologians have postulated that the fall of mankind in the Garden, with its subsequent expulsion, would not have taken place if Adam, as covenant and familial head, had not participated in eating the fruit.

There is no headship in a "home church." The thing that you quite miss is the even with the first Christians meeting in home churches, they were still under headship. A "home church" does not have such headship to which we, as Orthodox believers, are to be obedient. Each man becomes his own little "home pope" of the "home church." This is both nonsense and rebellion of a high degree.

There are five operational principles which make up a working covenant relationship. Number two is the principle of "Hierarchy," or to put it in plain language "who's in charge here?" The covenant headship over all mankind is Christ. He is the man who has taken Adam's place as "the Last Adam" That phrase identifies His headship and role. He is the King of Creation, and within the Suzerainty kingship model of rulership, the Apostles were established as "lesser kings," and went out and established the Gospel throughout the world.

The idea of an "invisible church" in which all people baptized are part of the Church and therefore there is no need of either a physical building or a structured church setting is just a continuation of the rebellion against authority. In this situation, there is no specific voice of truth, no ministry of teaching, no Sacraments, which are central to covenant (for instance, the Eucharist as the Covenant Meal of Restoration). You cannot have truth with thousands of independent voices each teaching something different and calling it truth. There is only one truth about baptism, for instance: it unites us to Christ, removes sin, and is done properly by three-fold immersion. Yet, in Evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism, you can find a wide variety of ideas about baptism, all of which are wrong.

This is the NEED for a structured Church with hierarchical leadership and set praxis of truth. I didn't even watch the video because I came out of that mess and know exactly what this guy is saying.

Church building =

1. Representation of heaven, with the icons reminding us of the "great cloud of witnesses" who are cheering us on in our journey. Incense, such as is found in the Book of Apocalypse.

2. Continuation of Temple worship of the Old Covenant. God nowhere sanctioned worship outside of the Temple to which He gave elaborate plans for its construction.

3. Symbolism within the covenant practices. Baptism = death, burial, and resurrection unto new life. Baptism is the ceremony of covenant making in the New Covenant, replacing circumcision. Confession = repenting of covenant breaking (sin) and restoring the covenant relationship. This must be done with a properly ordained covenant authority. Eucharist = covenant meal of restoration and continuation of what Christ taught the Apostles in John 6. Ordination = establishment of proper authority over the members of the Church. We are not our own authority, unlike the individualistic/narcissistic self-worship of Evangelicalism. We answer to proper authority, both here and at the Judgment Seat. Marriage = recognition of God's proper establishment of marriage. This is why no Orthodox church will ever perform a gay "marriage" ** Without covenant hierarchy to oversee the Church, and left on their own, men are apt to do anything that suits their fancy. Marriage is also one of the important symbolisms of Christ's relationship to His Church and His people.

Outside of a structured covenant relationship, there is anarchy. Outside of Orthodox worship, there is man-made worship. The worship that was given to Moses in the wilderness was so important that God warned Moses not to tamper with it by making his own or anyone else's additions to what God had shown Moses.

Why?

Because it is a picture of eternal truth: Hebrews 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

That word "admonished" is a very strong word. It is akin to God sticking His finger right in Moses' face and sternly and direly warning him not to mess around with the worship that will look like heaven.

Yet Evangelicals have taken their own ideas and call it worship. Sorry I can't be more charitable about this, but them's the facts. There is truth and then there is error. We need a place to worship which reflects heaven's glory, an authority under which to learn truth, and the Sacraments of the New Covenant of God by which we practice the faith "once given to the saints."

** I think of the Russian bishop who, upon learning that one of his priests conducted a "gay marriage," went to the priest and defrocked him, then burned the church to the ground, declared it defiled and unfit for further holy use!

I don’t know how it could be wrong if it’s my personal opinion…I made that statement, because I knew not everyone would agree with me….as is evident by your post.

Now….if you had said…. it’s not Gods opinion…. that would be different. Because, then you could show me in the Word where I am wrong….which brings up the question…. Can you show me in the Word where I am wrong.

You made the statement that there is no headship….but you have no idea how we are structured…It is quite unique, very functionable and accountable …you might even be impressed.


I don’t know what you came out of, but I can only speculate from what you have posted that there was no structure or leadership….and I would agree…. both are absolutely necessary.

I have to be very careful so as not to cross the line in this forum ….so I really cannot address some of your other comments

But I can address your #2 Since I don’t disagree but want to put it in the perspective of what God declares from the Word.

2. "Continuation of Temple worship of the Old Covenant. God nowhere sanctioned worship outside of the Temple to which He gave elaborate plans for its construction".

I won’t give you any teaching…. but you can check the scripture (which are linked) and determine where the holy naos is. 1Co 3:16&3:17, 1Co 6:19, 2Co 6:16, Eph 2:21. By clicking on the scripture reference when you are in BLB it will provide the Greek Words associate with the English

From the day of Pentecost until… I believe ... “the gathering together unto Him” …Gods temple is not in buildings or structure. The structure terminates in the gospels and picks up again in Revelation.

In addition to the body of Christ ….the individual believers are referenced as the tabernacle.

2Co 5:1, 2Co 5:4, Heb 8:2, Heb 9:11, 2Pe 1:13, 2Pe 1:14

 

[prodromos]

I have to be very careful so as not to cross the line in this forum ….so I really cannot address some of your other comments

This is in St Justin Martyr's subforum. You are allowed to debate our beliefs here as long as you do so in a civil and respectful manner

 

[ArmyMatt]

I have to be very careful so as not to cross the line in this forum ….so I really cannot address some of your other comments

it’s only the main forum where the rules are typically and unintentionally broken. so, debate away.

 

[Light of the East]

I don’t know how it could be wrong if it’s my personal opinion…I made that statement, because I knew not everyone would agree with me….as is evident by your post.

You are quite right. It is your opinion. I like the way that you put that and I can learn a lesson from this. I could have more charitably said "This is your opinion, but I do not agree with it." That would have been more proper, I think, and in more Christian charity. (*sigh* - I have so much to learn yet!)

As for your last comment on Christian believers being the tabernacle or temple of God, I think you are seeing this as an "either/or" statement. I certainly cannot disagree with the scriptures you quoted, but I don't believe they mean that there is no longer any need for an organized structure within the New Covenant, nor covenant headship over the earthly Body of Christ, the Church.

In looking at Protestantism, do you see the problem that arises when each man is his own little temple, his own pope, and his own voice of authority? We have literally hundreds of different worship practices, doctrines, teachings, etc. There is no unified voice of either truth or worship.

Do you believe that constitutes a rather serious problem?

Thanks for correcting me in my initial response. I will learn from this.