Where did the Church first go wrong?

[Albion]

Yes, the Church that is 2000 years old and that most Christians belong to.

Jesus didn't write a book, he started a Church. He gave his Church his authority to make rules and to forgive sins. His Church then wrote down his teachings and proclaims throughout the world as it has been doing for 2000 years.

What did Jesus tell us to do when two Christians have a dispute?

In order to really get somewhere with this kind of discussion it is essential to first reach some understanding of what "church" means in the Christian or Biblical context. If that is NOT done, then almost every professing Christian of any sort or affiliation is free to say that his church/denomination/communion is 2000 years old, the one that Christ started, etc. etc. And to each and everyone of those people, the claims appear to fit perfectly with the facts.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Thanks. You did mention the " feasts" previously, I know; but I'm not aware of many churches that keep the OT feasts and festivals other than for the Jehovah's Witnesses and Armstrongites, neither of which is normally considered to be Protestant. And there may well be independent congregations doing so. The other churches keep all, most, or parts of the historic Christian calendar and do not observe the Jewish holidays (at least not to my knowledge). So that's what I was thinking.

It's not kept formally but many churches have 'go at it' like it's something that is showing that they know about stuff Jesus did. However the whole point of the feasts were to point to Jesus' 1st and 2nd comings. They are codes of instructions about the timing of God's plan for the Salvation of man. Like a secret code in a war that tells the field commanders what to do and when without letting the enemy know.

 

[Thursday]

In order to really get somewhere with this kind of discussion it is essential to first reach some understanding of what "church" means in the Christian or Biblical context. If that is NOT done, then almost every professing Christian is going to say that his church is 2000 years old, the one that Christ started, etc. etc. And to each of those people, the claims seem to fit perfectly with the facts.

The Church Jesus started is clear enough. He appointed leaders, gave them his authority to teach and to forgive sins, promised to be with them until the end of the world, promised that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth, etc.

This is the Catholic Church. You can argue whether the Orthodox or Catholics represent this Church today, but we were united as one for hundreds of years. You can't argue that this one Church was not the Church Jesus started.

 

[Light of the East]

The problem is that of exclusion of way too much of what actually is the church in your limited interpretation of what you think the church is.

It is not my "limited interpretation." The idea of an "invisible church made up of all true believers" is a Protestant fantasy invented by the Reformers. Prior to the Reformation, there was but one Church, not thousands, and certainly not hundreds of different and competing doctrines.

When the word "church" is seen in English texts of the Bible, it refers always to the congregation of God, the covenant people. There is no such thing as some sort of "invisible covenant." Familiarize yourself with ancient Suzerain covenants and you will see the following: covenant was always made in a public ceremony with witnesses to join a specific visible group of peoples or two individuals together. This was the formulary for joining God's covenant community in the Bible, both the "edah" of the Old Covenant and the "eklessia" of the New Covenant. There was always a ritual of covenant cutting in which the person desiring membership in the covenant community was either circumcised or baptized in public and became part of a visible congregation of people with a visible and known hierarchy and a visible place of worship with known rules of behavior and worship.

This one community was first begun after the Fall with the promises made to Abraham and put together in the desert under Moses. Because of the faithlessness of the Jews, the covenant community which existed as national Israel was taken from them and given to a "new nation" under the headship of 12 new leaders who replaced the 12 tribes of Israel. Nowhere in the Scriptures is there any idea of any other leadership or any other congregation than that which existed in the first century under the headship of the Apostles. The idea that one may choose one's own worship in defiance of what God has given through the Apostles is a direct violation of God's warning not to tamper with what He has given the world for its salvation (Heb. 8:5).

 

[Albion]

The Church Jesus started is clear enough. He appointed leaders, gave them his authority to teach and to forgive sins, promised to be with them until the end of the world, promised that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth, etc.

Sure. Most of that applies to the Apostles--and every denomination claims them. When it comes to later church organization and leadership, that's where the disputes come into play.

This is the Catholic Church..

...or dozens of others, depending upon who is speaking.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Okay.....but look at our conversation. It turned in the direction of defining the Church, which I responded to. And in this thread, there have been others who have stated that the authority to make such decisions, no matter what manner they are made in, has been given to the bishops of the Church by Christ Himself. That is why we are defending the Church and why I have said that you need to become Catholic (or Orthodox).

Thanks for the invite but I happen to be with Jesus right now and for the for see able future. I would love to join but I'm doing exactly what Jesus wants me to do and it is really great. I'm sure your having fun over there too with all the bishops and the pope but I really can't tell how excited I am at the moment because Jesus about to do something new that He has never done before and I don't want to miss it. He does this everyday and I have to be around Him to see it see it, so I don't think I'll become a Catholic anytime ever as far as I can tell.

 

[Albion]

It is not my "limited interpretation." The idea of an "invisible church made up of all true believers" is a Protestant fantasy invented by the Reformers. Prior to the Reformation, there was but one Church, not thousands, and certainly not hundreds of different and competing doctrines.

The question remains: is the church to be identified with a particular organization or, on the contrary, with the true faith? And that's to say nothing of the fact that neither the EO or RCC can say, with accuracy, that it has been the same since the beginning.

When the word "church" is seen in English texts of the Bible, it refers always to the congregation of God, the covenant people. There is no such thing as some sort of "invisible covenant."

Who says "invisible covenant?"

It's true also that scripture speaks of the people of God and the disciples of Christ, so we are not talking exclusively of any certain assembly and it only.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Yes, the Church that is 2000 years old and that most Christians belong to.

Jesus didn't write a book, he started a Church. He gave his Church his authority to make rules and to forgive sins. His Church then wrote down his teachings and proclaims throughout the world as it has been doing for 2000 years.

What did Jesus tell us to do when two Christians have a dispute?

Was it listen to 'Guide To The Bible'?

 

[Guide To The Bible]

In order to really get somewhere with this kind of discussion it is essential to first reach some understanding of what "church" means in the Christian or Biblical context. If that is NOT done, then almost every professing Christian of any sort or affiliation is free to say that his church/denomination/communion is 2000 years old, the one that Christ started, etc. etc. And to each and everyone of those people, the claims appear to fit perfectly with the facts.

In this context the Church are the 11 men and the other followers Jesus told to wait in Jerusalem and to not leave.

 

[Thursday]

Sure. Most of that applies to the Apostles--and every denomination claims them. When it comes to later church organization and leadership, that's where the disputes come into play.


...or dozens of others.

No, Churches formed hundreds of years after Christ are not the Church he built.

Only the Orthodox and Catholics are 2000 years old.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

It is not my "limited interpretation." The idea of an "invisible church made up of all true believers" is a Protestant fantasy invented by the Reformers. Prior to the Reformation, there was but one Church, not thousands, and certainly not hundreds of different and competing doctrines.

When the word "church" is seen in English texts of the Bible, it refers always to the congregation of God, the covenant people. There is no such thing as some sort of "invisible covenant." Familiarize yourself with ancient Suzerain covenants and you will see the following: covenant was always made in a public ceremony with witnesses to join a specific visible group of peoples or two individuals together. This was the formulary for joining God's covenant community in the Bible, both the "edah" of the Old Covenant and the "eklessia" of the New Covenant. There was always a ritual of covenant cutting in which the person desiring membership in the covenant community was either circumcised or baptized in public and became part of a visible congregation of people with a visible and known hierarchy and a visible place of worship with known rules of behavior and worship.

This one community was first begun after the Fall with the promises made to Abraham and put together in the desert under Moses. Because of the faithlessness of the Jews, the covenant community which existed as national Israel was taken from them and given to a "new nation" under the headship of 12 new leaders who replaced the 12 tribes of Israel. Nowhere in the Scriptures is there any idea of any other leadership or any other congregation than that which existed in the first century under the headship of the Apostles. The idea that one may choose one's own worship in defiance of what God has given through the Apostles is a direct violation of God's warning not to tamper with what He has given the world for its salvation (Heb. 8:5).

Yeah because they were either murdered before they really got going or were to scared to start up.

 

[Thursday]

Yeah because they were either murdered before they really got going or were to scared to start up.

To start up?

I thought Jesus already started a Church.

 

[Albion]

No, Churches formed hundreds of years after Christ are not the Church he built.

Some few fall into that category, but most Christian denominations have a claim to the Apostles that's little different from the claim your church makes.

Only the Orthodox and Catholics are 2000 years old.

I know you are supposed to say that and it makes all members of these churches feel secure. That, however, is incidental to the issue here.

 

[Thursday]

Was it listen to 'Guide To The Bible'?

Haha!

Actually, I was referring to this from Matt 18:17:

If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

 

[Thursday]

I know you are supposed to say that and it makes all members of these churches feel secure. That, however, is incidental to the facts of the matter.

Facts do seem incidental to you.

King Henry was not an apostle.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Ahhr, I see so perhaps we should all just follow what you say and ignore what the Bible says about learning:

I'm not sure where you get that from my post?

No, I am not telling anyone to follow what I say.

No, I'm not telling anyone to ignore the Scriptures.

No, I'm not saying a person should not learn. Learning the truth, history, context, languages, culture, and more is always a good thing.


I am surprised you could mischaracterize my welcome to another member to be saying such things.

I take exception to singling me out as some tool of the Devil

Again, I did no such thing. I wasn't even speaking to you, nor about you.

I do still maintain that such divisive attitudes as can be seen in this thread are a tool in the hands of the enemy.

when all i am doing is rebuking the body as instructed in the Bible to do so, or may be you think that's just a waste of time and we should all just .. .Ahhrr whatever...

Once again, making assumptions about what I think and my intent, and while not fully expressed on your part, I still don't see the foundation nor the relevance?

 

[Albion]

Facts do seem incidental to you.

King Henry was not an apostle.

No one said he was. He didn't start any church, either. The church in Britain is older than the Church of Rome.

And let's be clear about this. Christianity precedes every denomination--yours, mine, or theirs. Each denominational loyalist can say that his is the one true or only church but, in fact, all or almost all have descended from the Apostolic church that was non-denominational and, believe it or not, was not identical in belief or practice to any of today's many denominations.

People think it's a selling point to claim that their own church is the "real" one, but neither history nor scripture substantiates that POV.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

No, Churches formed hundreds of years after Christ are not the Church he built.

Only the Orthodox and Catholics are 2000 years old.

That is not the Church. The Church is every believer in Christ who will be saved.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

I'm not sure where you get that from my post?

No, I am not telling anyone to follow what I say.

No, I'm not telling anyone to ignore the Scriptures.

No, I'm not saying a person should not learn. Learning the truth, history, context, languages, culture, and more is always a good thing.


I am surprised you could mischaracterize my welcome to another member to be saying such things.




Again, I did no such thing. I wasn't even speaking to you, nor about you.

I do still maintain that such divisive attitudes as can be seen in this thread are a tool in the hands of the enemy.



Once again, making assumptions about what I think and my intent, and while not fully expressed on your part, I still don't see the foundation nor the relevance?

Well just as long as we understand each other. That's okay then

 

[~Anastasia~]

Well as I have said on here, hind-sight is a great thing, so to be fair to them it was understandable to a degree I suppose and to be clear the point I'm making is they should not have selected a replacement to the man who Jesus had selected Himself and for that matter He had selected each of them. It was not this job to do his job. They were just supposed to wait as Jesus said.

I will agree with you to a point. As a matter of fact, most often we have the 12 Apostles on the iconostasis of every Orthodox Church. And Matthias is not among them, but Paul is.

So we indeed recognize God's choice.

But seriously, what is the point? If the Apostles made a mistake, and then it was corrected? The same thing happened when Peter sided with the Judaizers. No doubt it wouldn't be difficult to find other examples.

I never saw anyone argue that the Apostles were supposed to be infallible. That's why the early Church was councilliar. The Holy Spirit led THE CHURCH as a whole, and when a person was part of it made a mistake (as quite often happened), it was corrected.

The important point being - it WAS corrected. So that we could trust when the Gospels, Epistles, and numerous other writings were being circulated, which were true. So that we could recognize heresies when they cropped up. And so on.

So, this is your thread. We are hundreds of posts in. What do you mean to say by it?

Simply that they made a mistake and should have waited? Well, frankly, God is their judge, not any man. And you don't seem to be arguing to throw the Church out entirely? (Otherwise we wouldn't have the Scripture with which to confirm anything to criticize them.)

So where ARE we going with all of this? Because I've been wondering ...