I Corinthians; Defining the church

I can remember when I first became saved by believing in Our Lord Jesus Christ . I like many kept reading and trying to understand but I ran into conflict by using secular terms and what I some how though I knew . I later discovered the kingdom cults that explained my confusion . So now I was a new believer and realized that I should gather together with other Christians .Because where two or more are gathered there He is in their mists .I was in the Church but was not part of A Church . So there is THE Church and there ARE Churches if there is more then one believer there . A Church can be in a house .in a tent .in the woods or even in a boat .But it takes more then one believer to gather together to constitute A Church ...I hope that makes sense ...peace

reply to post by the2ofusr1

Yes, this does make sense.
Let's compare it with what Paul says;
On the one hand "there are churches"; Paul writes to "the church of God which is at Corinth", by which he means the local Christian community.
On the other hand, there is "THE church"; Paul says that these Corinthians are called to be saints "together with all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ".
(Both from ch1 v2)
So there is the "local church" and the "overall church", what I like to call "the blessed company of all faithful people".

The problem comes with a middle meaning between these two, when people use "church" for a human institution incorporating part of the overall church, e.g. "the Catholic church", "the Presbyterian church".
It becomes a problem because the Catholics especially, but also others, refuse to recognise the distinction between this "middle" meaning and the "overall meaning".
That enables them to come up with the argument "Christ founded the church and we are the church", an argument which is slightly dishonest because the meaning of the word "church" is being switched halfway through (from "overall" to "middle") and the fact isn't being advertised.
That is why I maintain that this "middle" meaning of the word "church" is confusing and ought to be abandoned.

reply to post by DISRAELI
I find the problem lies in the language of the words .For example try using secular terms of words in a court of law and you will find that they use whats known as legalize . Same when talking to most Christians that are not so astute in the language of the words ....peace

reply to post by the2ofusr1

I know. I'm trying to do my bit by using the word "community", or something similar, instead of "church", when I mean a denomination.
Talking about "the Roman Catholic community" undercuts the misleading argument.

DISRAELI
reply to post by the2ofusr1

 

I know. I'm trying to do my bit by using the word "community", or something similar, instead of "church", when I mean a denomination.
Talking about "the Roman Catholic community" undercuts the misleading argument.

DISRAELI, denomination is a Protestant term for all their thousands of splits. And another, who could imagine, the word "non-denomination" used for more splits (sects).

There is one faith, Jesus established one Church founded on the Apostles. Pride, there are exceptions,
one accepting the grace of God but people usually stay with what they have been taught. God Himself is going to reveal to the world, the faith is Roman Catholicism, the Remnant is Roman Catholic. God
can bring everyone together, trust and believe.

How many times does Jesus have to say it and now from Heaven through one of His prophets? The reason Protestants reject the pinnacle of the faith, Our Lord in the most Holy Eucharist, because they cannot confect it.

Father Melvin has the gift of healing too. His parish on Prince Edward Island, is the only place in Canada where abortion is outlawed.

We're near the end of September, this message was given September 3rd.

+ + +


Tuesday, September 3, 2013

Loyalty to the Gospel

A reading from Saint Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (1:1-10):
Paul, an apostle not from human beings nor through a human being but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead, and all the brothers who are with me, to the churches of Galatia: grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins that he might rescue us from the present evil age in accord with the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.
I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by the grace of Christ for a DIFFERENT gospel (not that there is another). But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed! Am I now currying favor with human beings or God? Or am I seeking to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a slave of Christ.

————————————————-

Jesus:
”With Saint Paul I give you grace and peace, My brother Melvin and all My brothers and sisters who follow the Gospel I brought to you. There are so many people today who believe all kinds of false teachings. There are those who follow Buddha, others follow Mohammed, others follow leaders who have started their own sects, such as the Jehovah Witnesses or the Church of the Latter Day Saints known as the Mormons, and there are many others besides.
“I came into the world to bring ONE Gospel to you and I want every person to follow My Gospel. Anything that is changed is false and should never be accepted as coming from Me. I gave My Gospel to the Apostles and their leader was Saint Peter, appointed by Me to head My Church. It is in My Church that you will find the TRUE Gospel and My Church has the right interpretation of My Words. Many Protestants REFUSE to read the Gospel of Saint John Chapter 6 about the Bread of Life. I said this about the Eucharist: ‘I am the bread of Life. I am the living bread that came down from heaven, whoever eats this bread with live forever, and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.’ AGAIN I SAID,‘Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. For My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.’ Follow these words....

Father Melvin

reply to post by colbe


Oops, here is the link to that message:

www.ourladyofpei.com...

DISRAELI
reply to post by the2ofusr1

 

Yes, this does make sense.
Let's compare it with what Paul says;
On the one hand "there are churches"; Paul writes to "the church of God which is at Corinth", by which he means the local Christian community.
On the other hand, there is "THE church"; Paul says that these Corinthians are called to be saints "together with all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ".
(Both from ch1 v2)
So there is the "local church" and the "overall church", what I like to call "the blessed company of all faithful people".

The problem comes with a middle meaning between these two, when people use "church" for a human institution incorporating part of the overall church, e.g. "the Catholic church", "the Presbyterian church".
It becomes a problem because the Catholics especially, but also others, refuse to recognise the distinction between this "middle" meaning and the "overall meaning".
That enables them to come up with the argument "Christ founded the church and we are the church", an argument which is slightly dishonest because the meaning of the word "church" is being switched halfway through (from "overall" to "middle") and the fact isn't being advertised.
That is why I maintain that this "middle" meaning of the word "church" is confusing and ought to be abandoned.

There is no argument, only disbelief. Everything you know of Christ less the OT prophecies about
Our Lord came from the faith, Roman Catholicism.

Places of assembling (the meaning of Church) to worship in different areas like today, same worship. Paul instructs them, do not fall away from the faith (singular) you have been taught.


God bless you,

reply to post by colbe
Shame on you brother for comparing Christian churches to those cults ...edit ...and to the guy on PEI who is adding things to the word of God because I think you would be hard pressed to find our Lord sayin what that man claims ....peace grrrr

colbe
There is no argument, only disbelief. Everything you know of Christ less the OT prophecies about
Our Lord came from the faith, Roman Catholicism.

That statement is false because of the last two words that you have added.
"The Faith" and "Roman Catholicism" are not the same thing.

Let me use a simple analogy.
The United States and the state of Virginia are not the same thing.
The state of Virginia is only a fragment of the United States.
Therefore it is possible to be an American citizen without being a citizen of the state of Virginia.

Similarly the faith and the Roman Catholic community are not the same thing.
The Roman Catholic community is only a fragment of the faith.
Therefore it is possible to belong to the faith without belonging to the Roman Catholic community.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Here's the way that I look at it.

For 1,000 years, there was, essentially, one Christian church, and a handful of pseudo-Christian churches.

For 500 years after that, there were, essentially, two Christian churches, and the differences were mostly political, not theological (though there are some, of course.)

For the 500 years after that, the past 500 years, there have been thousands of Christian churches, most of whom teach very different theologies.

Now, if one believes that there are extra-scriptural sources of revelation, one can say that the Holy Spirit has come into the world and corrected the problems of "the church" (the body of believers.) Problem is that, for the vast majority of those thousands of different denominations, extra-scriptural revelation is rejected, and there is no way, apart from some personal agreement, to determine which, if any, theology is correct, and my personal opinion is that none of them are.

Finally, in order to discern what theology is closest to the "true church", about all one is left with is to compare that church's teaching with the earliest known teaching of the earliest Christian church, and that leads, inevitably, back to either the Roman Church, or the Eastern Orthodox.

While I would differ from my fellow Roman Catholics, such as Colbe or Charles, on some aspects of Catholic teaching that I do not believe is valid, I think that on all of the key issues, such as the nature of the Eucharist, the sacrament of Conciliation, salvation by faith, but not faith alone, I fall on the side of 1,500 years of tradition which arose out of the early church, as opposed to 500 years of doctrine which arose out of the pen of a handful of 16th Century theologians.

Ultimately, that was what led me to convert to the Roman Catholic church - the belief that, while it may have fallen into apostasy, it could not be in a deeper state of apostasy than churches whose theology rejected 1,500 years of tradition in favour of the radical reformation of Luther, Zwingli and their followers.

reply to post by adjensen

I'm very reluctant to get involved in a discussion of "which one is right".
I will only say that the OP was aiming at a very minimalist definition of what it means to be "in the church", identifying it with being "called into fellowship with Christ", and trying to detach it from the whole question of divisions between denominations.
The bludgeoning approach of Colbe uses a definition of the church which I find unacceptable- not least, because it is unconsciously confusing two different meanings of the word.
I am also too conscious of the way the "Roman Catholic Church" had developed, as a comparatively modern institution, to accept the claim that this institution, and this institution only, is to be identified with the original church.
I think my own more minimalist definition goes a long way towards promoting mutual acceptance and co-operation between different individuals in the larger body.

reply to post by adjensen
Hi ..do you factor in to your though the counter reformation movement by the Jesuits and or how the kingdom cults do and have coloured or blurred the lines in a historical context ? I find it a bit of a jump to take 2 simple symbols ( loaf of bread & wine ) which all cultures have in common , and compare them to what we see in most if not all Catholic Churches . It seems to me that the importance in the act of remembering is pictured in the physical abuse He endured for us ....I guess its in the minds eye for me .....peace

reply to post by DISRAELI


Once again, I need to re-itterate, due to my poor explanation earlier, that I do not believe that the current Roman Catholic church is the "true church" -- I just think that they're the closest thing to it. If we could go back to the very early time in church history, pre-Augustine, or maybe right around his time, I think we'd have a pretty good handle on what those closest to Christ envisioned his church to be. After that, all of the politics and East/West theological turmoil just turn things into a total mess.

I converted for two main reasons -- the Catholic view of the Eucharist, and problems that I began to have with the Solas, particularly Sola Scriptura, which is fine for bright guys like you and I, but if you read the Bible, Christ didn't minister to bright guys, he ministered to the poor and uneducated; sheep that need to be led and fed, and if we leave them with "Me and my Bible" theology or, even worse, the uneducated, unguided and undisciplined churches that seem to be the modern movement, those sheep are not being led in the right direction.

the2ofusr1
reply to post by adjensen

 

Hi ..do you factor in to your though the counter reformation movement by the Jesuits and or how the kingdom cults do and have coloured or blurred the lines in a historical context ? I find it a bit of a jump to take 2 simple symbols ( loaf of bread & wine ) which all cultures have in common , and compare them to what we see in most if not all Catholic Churches . It seems to me that the importance in the act of remembering is pictured in the physical abuse He endured for us ....I guess its in the minds eye for me .....peace

I have long studied the early church, and from what documents we still have of it, core Catholic teaching remains fairly consistent with it, at least doctrinally. Priests were allowed to be married in the early church, for example, but that is a matter of policy, not doctrine -- if Pope Francis decided he wanted married priests, he could probably make that happen (difficult, to be sure, but possible.) But if he wanted to declare that the Doctrine of the Trinity wasn't valid, he couldn't do that (and if he persisted in that notion, he'd eventually be ex-communicated, even Popes aren't free to do or say whatever they want.)

Among those early doctrines are the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which is still upheld by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran and a handful of other Protestant churches. It is derived from, among other things, the text of John 6, in which Christ explicitly says that he is the "Bread of Life", and you must eat of his flesh to enter the Kingdom -- to which some of his disciples are repulsed, protest, and eventually leave him.

So, no, the Jesuits didn't take "2 simple symbols" and turn it into something -- from the earliest times, so far as we can tell, Christians have viewed the Last Supper, the Feeding of the 5,000 and Christ's teaching on eating his flesh to mean that when we have communion, we are truly being infused with Christ. It is a minority view (though a prevalent one) that communion is nothing more than a remembrance ceremony. As I said in a previous post, that is one of the reasons that I left the Methodist church in favour of the Roman Catholic one.

reply to post by adjensen
I was under the impression that the Pope's position was the direct and only authoritative representative of Christ here on earth .I have read other Catholic statements making that claim . I am not sure if we are on topic to this thread but D if we are please interject to get us back on track . I guess it's some of the statements made by the denominational Churches that have a man made institutional aspect that gives me pause . I guess I try and imaging a isolated island with different people from different places being stranded ,and a bible being washed up on shore and them all reading it and being saved ..what could or would they have to go by in the way of coming together as a Church

the2ofusr1
reply to post by adjensen

 

I was under the impression that the Pope's position was the direct and only authoritative representative of Christ here on earth .

We're all representatives of Christ on Earth, or at least we're supposed to be

Yes, we're getting a little far afield from the topic, sorry DISRAELI, but the belief, among Roman Catholics, is that the Pope is the "Vicar of Christ" (well, one of them -- a little known fact is that the Pope is just another Bishop, but he is a specific one, the Bishop of Rome, and all Bishops are also "Vicars of Christ",) the successor of Peter, on whom Christ said he would build his church. There are obviously those who disagree with that, but that's what we believe.

Under very specific conditions, doing very specific things, the Pope is considered to be doctrinally infallible, but other than that, he's just another guy -- he has to go to another priest or Bishop to confess his sins, do penance, attend Mass, etc.

I guess I try and imaging a isolated island with different people from different places being stranded ,and a bible being washed up on shore and them all reading it and being saved ..what could or would they have to go by in the way of coming together as a Church

It's an interesting thought experiment, but so much of the Bible is open to interpretation that it is highly unlikely that your desert island survivors would come up with what we now know as Christianity. If you came round, after the fact, and produced say, the Nicene Creed, they'd likely say "okay, I see where that bit comes from", but they wouldn't necessarily agree with the whole thing, because a lot of deep thinking, theology and historical tradition is behind that document.

adjensen
Once again, I need to re-itterate, due to my poor explanation earlier, that I do not believe that the current Roman Catholic church is the "true church"

Sorry, that was a late addition to my post, which was really just continuing the purely defensive argument with Colbe.
But it does help to draw a useful distinction.
For this pupose, I'm interested in the church in terms of something to belong to, rather than something to draw teaching from.
As "something to belong to", my point has been that if I have the relation which Paul describes with Father, Son and Holy Spirit, I am automatically part of the church in the only sense that really matters.
You are reflecting on the respective merits of the institutions, like the Roman Catholic body, as teachers of doctrine, but I have been maintaining that the use of the word "church" for these human institutions is confusing and ought to be abandoned, not least because it leads to the fallacious Colbe-type line of argument.

The question of the place of Christian teachers is really a chapter three issue. I'm coming to that in due course.
The sequence will be, for the "calling" part of the definition;
"The calling and the cross"; already up and running, you may have seen it on the boards.
"The calling and the Spirit"- chapter 2.
Then "The calling and the teachers". To anticipate, the moral of chapter three is that human teachers ought not to elevate themselves too highly, which is applicable in all sorts of directions.

Explained very well and I agree with your last comment, it is going to take God to unite Christianity.


May the Two Hearts keep you safe,


colbe

wrong place to post

The next thread in this series is to be found at this location;

The calling and the cross