"All be one"

[adf417]

Adf5,

My church uses the Nicene creed and recites the apostles creed every sunday. That used to be sufficient for communion between churches.

Communion is explained and our invitation is for those who want to commune with Jesus. No one is turned away.from the Lords Table. We celebrate communion with the presbyterian church across the street every year. We believe that the NT does not teach approval of excommunication for the reason of varieties in doctrines.

Peace, JohnR

Greetings John,

Thank you for your response and I will assume for now Rob concurs with your post which is somewhat enlightening for me.

Communion is, I guess, the key word here that may deserve it’s separate thread as I will hope you understand why Catholics do not have open communion. That said, the communion you are describing sounds like it would not be of the same essence (real presence) and is understandable why the communal sharing.

When did the Nicene Creed become no longer sufficient for communion between churches? Could it be that it became ineffective because it was meant for only “one” church, not churches?

Acts 2: 42-44: 42They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers. 43Awe came upon everyone, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44All who believed were together and had all things in common;

Do you consider your church and the Presbyterian church across the street to have all things in common?

Peace and many blessings!!!

 

[Contarini]

Adf5,

My church uses the Nicene creed and recites the apostles creed every sunday. That used to be sufficient for communion between churches.

Used to be when exactly?

Edwin

 

[jlhargus]

In my mind there is no approval therefor based on the varieties today. I dont see how you can read everyones mind anyway.

JL: Honestly Submariner, you are in disagreement with the NT as has been pointed out to you by many. It isn’t about reading minds. It’s about individuals PROCLAIMING false doctrine causing DIVISION in the ONE BODY of Christ. The council of Nicea was called to bring about unity, IN ONE FAITH TRUTH, not approval of VARIETIES of CONTRADICTING beliefs.

In fact the definiton in the fourth century was the apostles creed. that does not seem to be sufficient anymore. My church uses the Nicene creed and recites the apostles creed every sunday. That used to be sufficient for communion between churches.

JL: The purpose of the apostles’ creed was to CORRECT false teaching. Those who did not agree with the creed, BROKE ‘KOINIA’, excommunicated themselves. Had a variety of contradicting doctrines been ok there wouldn’t have been a need for the creed or a council nor breaking koinia.

Here is the opinion of Father Raymond Brown on that issue.

“Most of the NT was written before the major breaks in ‘koinia’. detectable in the second century, and so NT diversity cannot be used to justify Christian division today. We modern Christians have broken ‘koinonia’ with each other, for, explicitly or implicitly, we have excommunicated and/or stated that other christians are disloyal to the will of Christ in major issues. **Such a DIVIDED situation does not have **NT approbation.”

Raymond Brown, The Churches The Apostles Left Behind, p 148. Approved with the Imprimatur. Rob

JL: I added the bold print and capped divided in Fr Browns statement to clarify how I view it. I view this paragraph as oppisite to your view. I would need to see more context. Fr Brown seems, to me, to be saying, because the NT was written BEFORE breaks in koinia. The NT can’t be used to JUSTIFY DIVISION TODAY. There is no NT approbation (APPROVAL) for DIVISIONS TODAY. In any case the magisterium decides doctrine not individual opinions no matter how learned.

 

[submariner2]

jlhargus;9378340]JL: I’m going to take a guess you are United Church of Christ. If you celebrate communion with Presbyterians why don’t you close your church and go there unless of course DOCTRINE stands in the way?

jihargus,

I am Methodist. I love my church and I am sure they love theirs. Some of their members and our members ride to church together and often they will use our facilities since we have a large meeting hall in addition to our sanctuary. I have helped clean up after their gatherings in our facilites. We are the same Christs body. Doctrine does not stand in the way of anything.

Basically you’re preaching there is no gospel truth and truth is irrelivent. Everyone’s truth is as valid as another’s even though they contradict each other. That’s a house built on sand.

Not at all. I am sayiing that neither of us think the other is disloyal to the will of Christ.
You may think minor differences are important. We do not.

[Rms16:16 Salute one another with an holy kiss. **THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST SALUTE YOU

. 17 Now I beseech you, brethren, MARK THEM WHICH CAUSE DIVISIONS and offences CONTRARY TO THE DOCTRINE which ye have learned; and AVOID THEM. 18 For THEY that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. 19 For YOUR OBEDIENCE IS COME ABROAD UNTO ALL MEN. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil. 20 And THE GOD OF PEACE SHALL BRUISE SATAN UNDER YOUR FEET SHORTLY. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.]

God doesn’t show favoritism but He is not indifferent to truth. The truth that makes us free. [Jn8:32 ye shall know the truth, and THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE.] He doesn’t approve false teachers. According to scripture.

2Pt2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in DAMNABLE HERESIES, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; BY reason of WHOM THE WAY OF TRUTH shall be evil spoken of.]

I dont know what that has to do with anything. Obviously we do not think of the other as Satan or teaching doctrines contrary to what Christ taught. On the contrary we think of each other as part of the Body of Christ.

Paul seemed to think ONE Correct DOCTRINE is essential, for UNITY, in that ONE VISIBLE APOSTOLIC FELLOWSHIP. Paul even checked his teaching with that one fellowship.

[Gal2:1 Then fourteen years after ** I WENT UP AGAIN TO JERUSALEM

with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2 And I went up BY REVELATION, and COMMUNICATED UNTO THEM that GOSPEL which I PREACH among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, LEST BY ANY MEANS I SHOULD run, or HAD RUN, IN VAIN

Paul went to Jerusalem to iron out major issues that could interfere with his mission. They compromised even though Paul seems to have broken the deal later on. The Presbyterians do not have major issues to iron out with us as did Paul with the Jerusalem church.
Even so there never was any indication both were not the body of Chirst and one or the other would excommunicate the other. Such a behavior is never approved in the NT despite the variety of beliefs.

We believe it is our christian duty to accept other christians in the name of Jesus and not to turn them away from the Lords Table. We are all part of the Body of Christ as Paul taught.I am very thankful we have that attitude about other christians. We also have similar activities with the Episcopalions two blocks away, and even the Church of God several blocks away. (note that the Church of God is mentioned in the NT when no other denomination is so mentioned)

Rob

 

[submariner2]

Communion is, I guess, the key word here that may deserve it’s separate thread as I will hope you understand why Catholics do not have open communion. That said, the communion you are describing sounds like it would not be of the same essence (real presence) and is understandable why the communal sharing.

We both believe in the real spiritual presence of Christ. I think all protestants accept that view.

When did the Nicene Creed become no longer sufficient for communion between churches? Could it be that it became ineffective because it was meant for only “one” church, not churches?

The purpose it was derived was for the many churches even with different practices and doctrines. The Nicene Creed settled the major issues. Seems some other issues have become major for some.

Acts 2: 42-44: 42They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers. 43Awe came upon everyone, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44All who believed were together and had all things in common;

Scholars know there was much variety of beliefs in the early church. Even some Catholic scholars say there is no justification for churches excommunicating each other over minor issues. Here is Father Raymond Brown for his opinion.

“Most of the NT was written before the major breaks in ‘koinia’. detectable in the second century, and so NTdiversity cannot be used to justify Christian division today. We modern Christians have broken ‘koinonia’ with each other, for, explicitly or implicitly, we have excommunicated and/or stated that other christians are disloyal to the will of Christ in major issues. Such a divided situation does not have NT approbation.”
Raymond Brown, The Churches The Apostles Left Behind, p 148. Approved with the Imprimatur.

Do you consider your church and the Presbyterian church across the street to have all things in common?

We do on what is significant. We each respect each other as christians.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

Used to be when exactly?

Edwin

contarini,

It used to be sufficient at the time it was developed. The purpose was to unite the various churches with different practices and doctrines. It was known that any church that used that creed was in communion with the others.

But since that time the nicene creed or the apostles creed has been set aside by some as not sufficient. We consider those creeds sufficient for communion btween us and we wish other churches thought the same.

Rob

 

[adf417]

We both believe in the real spiritual presence of Christ. **I think all protestants accept that view. **

I don’t think so Rob…

We do on what is significant. We each respect each other as christians.

I keep hearing this message but, respectfully, it still don’t compute. Respectfully again, why the continued splits? Or why the first split?

Peace!!!

 

[KathleenGee]

The present mentality of ‘splits’, schisms, rejection of Christ’s authority in His church…

This essentially was not present at the original Church of Jerusalem where all were of one mind and one heart…not symbolically, but actually.

Oh yes, we all believe in Christ…but we cannot come to the same table as one. This is not the work of the Holy Spirit…He does not bear the fruit of splits, contradictions, contentions, but a faith with certitude…one, holy, universal, and apostolic. There can be no other way to provide us such oneness of mind, heart and soul.

Think of this…where is the unified Christian block in the USA? There isn’t because we do not share the communion of one faith and one mind, but divisive, contradictory forces all claiming to be right and following God’s will…and thus we fall.

 

[submariner2]

I don’t think so Rob…
I keep hearing this message but, respectfully, it still don’t compute. Respectfully again, why the continued splits? Or why the first split?

adf,

Hard to know the first split. There has always been variety in our church from the beginning. 3 John discusses an early one. It is sad that there are so many splits. I presume you are referring to the 16th century Reformation.

Remember that Martin Luther was excommunicated, so hard to put the blame on him.

Rob

 

[jlhargus]

I am Methodist. I love my church and I am sure they love theirs. Some of their members and our members ride to church together and often they will use our facilities since we have a large meeting hall in addition to our sanctuary. I have helped clean up after their gatherings in our facilites. We are the same Christs body. Doctrine does not stand in the way of anything.

JL: I can say the same as far as the examples of COOPERATION with Presbyterians and others. Cooperation is a good thing and should be encouraged. Yet cooperation isn’t the unity Christ prayed for and intended. Evidently doctrine does stand in the way for UNITY otherwise you would become one.

Not at all. I am sayiing that neither of us think the other is disloyal to the will of Christ. You may think minor differences are important. We do not.

JL: Nor do I think they are disloyal to the will of Christ or unsaved. Could you define what you consider minor differences? Is the doctrine of once saved always saved as opposed to one can lose salvation a minor difference? By the way which of the several Methodist Denominations do you belong and which of the three Presbyerian denoninations is accross the street from you? Was it minor or major differences that caused Methodism to split from the Anglicans and then split several time into several different Methodist denominations? Was it minor or major differences that caused Presbyterians to split into three denominations?

I dont know what that has to do with anything.

JL: Roman16 has to do with those who CAUSE DIVISIONS teaching CONTRARY DOCTRINE they are to be AVODED. Why so many divisions in Protestantism if not doctrinal.

[Rms16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, MARK THEM WHICH CAUSE DIVISIONS and offences CONTRARY TO THE DOCTRINE which ye have learned; and AVOID THEM. 18 For THEY that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

Obviously we do not think of the other as Satan or teaching doctrines contrary to what Christ taught. On the contrary we think of each other as part of the Body of Christ.

JL: Nor do I think of them as Satan. However I do think Satan is the cause of splits. So you don’t think, one who teaches, once saved always saved doesn’t contradict the teaching one can lose salvation? Wouldn’t one of those contradicting teachings be CONTRARY to what Christ taught? They can’t BOTH be TRUE.

 

[jlhargus]

Paul went to Jerusalem to iron out major issues that could interfere with his mission. They compromised even though Paul seems to have broken the deal later on. The Presbyterians do not have major issues to iron out with us as did Paul with the Jerusalem church.

JL: That isn’t what Paul tells us is it? Where does Paul memtion MAJOR DIFFERENCES?
[Gal2:1 Then fourteen years after ** I WENT UP AGAIN TO JERUSALEM with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2 And I went up BY REVELATION, and COMMUNICATED UNTO THEM that GOSPEL which I PREACH among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, LEST BY ANY MEANS I SHOULD run, or HAD RUN, IN VAIN.]

Paul said he went to communicate to THEM (that ONE VISIBLE FELLOWSHIP) the gospel he preached. Lest by ANY MEANS he should be running (TEACHING) in vain.

Even so there never was any indication both were not the body of Chirst and one or the other would excommunicate the other. Such a behavior is never approved in the NT despite the variety of beliefs.

JL: Of course as there wasn’t a disagreement. Paul simply went to Jerusalem to make sure his preaching was in agreement with the ONE VISIBLE APOSTOLIC FELLOWSHIP. Evidently it was.

excommunicate the other. Such a behavior is never approved in the NT despite the variety of beliefs

[Gal1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, **let him be accursed (anathema). 9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.]

Mt18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but** IF HE NEGLECT TO HEAR THE CHURCH, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican**.
Could you give a NT example of variety of beliefs?

 

[jlhargus]

We believe it is our christian duty to accept other christians in the name of Jesus and not to turn them away from the Lords Table. We are all part of the Body of Christ as Paul taught.I am very thankful we have that attitude about other christians. We also have similar activities with the Episcopalions two blocks away, and even the Church of God several blocks away.

JL: Even when their teaching CONTRADICTS your denomination. [1Cor 1:9 God is faithful **you were called into THE FELLOWSHIP OF his Son JESUS CHRIST 10 I appeal to you BREATHREN by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that all of you AGREE that there be no dissensions among you that you BE UNITED in the same mind and THE SAME JUDGMENT]

[Jn17:20 Neither **pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me THROUGH THEIR WORD 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.]

Christ is praying for the apostles and ALL who will believe in HIM thru their (apostles’) word. That they ALL be ONE indivisible BODY. Just as the TRINITY is one indivisible body, God. We in them, they in us thru the Holy Spirit. He is praying not only for spiritual UNITY and oneness, but also VISIBLE ONENESS so the world may BELIEVE. The world can’t unless they can SEE ONE FELLOWSHIP.

[Mk 9:38 And JOHN answered him, SAYING, MASTER, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and **HE FOLLOWETH NOT US: and WE FORBAD HIM, because HE FOLLOWETH NOT US. 39 But JESUS SAID, FORBID HIM NOT: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. 40 For HE THAT IS NOT **AGAINST US **is on OUR PART.]

Christ established, and SENT one fellowship to TEACH the whole world till the end, promising to be WITH THEM ALWAYS, Mt28:16-20. The Holy Spirit works thru those separated denominations not in visible union with the Apostles Fellowship. Uniting them to the ONE fellowship in a spiritual way. All Christ’s children are spiritually, although not visibly nor holding the apostles doctrine fully, united to the Church or body of Christ.

[1Tm3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in **THE HOUSE OF GOD, which is THE CHURCH of the living God, THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH.] There can’t be thousands of households of God teaching contradicting doctrine. There is only ONE HOUSEHOLD OF GOD, that is the pillar and ground of truth. that SENT by Christ the apostles fellowship and their successors.

(note that the Church of God is mentioned in the NT when no other denomination is so mentioned) Rob

JL: Notice in [Rms16:16 Salute one another with an holy kiss. **THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST SALUTE YOU.] . There is no mention a denomination but only ONE VISIBLE FELLOWSHIP. Whether it’s called the Church of God or Church of Christ or Catholic Church or Body of Christ or Bride of Christ. It is ONE VISIBLE FELLOWSHIP. If you believe the Church of God is the only biblical denomination then why are you disobedient and cause division by not uniting with them?

 

[jlhargus]

Scholars know there was much variety of beliefs in the early church. Even some Catholic scholars say there is no justification for churches excommunicating each other over minor issues. Here is Father Raymond Brown for his opinion.

“Most of the NT was written before the major breaks in ‘koinia’. detectable in the second century, and so NTdiversity cannot be used to justify Christian division today. We modern Christians have broken ‘koinonia’ with each other, for, explicitly or implicitly, we have excommunicated and/or stated that other christians are disloyal to the will of Christ in major issues. Such a divided situation does not have NT approbation.”

Raymond Brown, The Churches The Apostles Left Behind, p 148. Approved with the Imprimatur.

JL: Could you point out where Fr. Brown agrees with you? It doesn’t take a scholar to know there was variety of beliefs in the early church. As then it still is. It’s called hersay when it CONTRADICTS the gospel.

I view this paragraph as oppisite to your view. Fr Brown seems, to me, to be saying, because the NT was written BEFORE breaks in koinia. The NT can’t be used to JUSTIFY DIVISION TODAY. There is no NT approbation (APPROVAL) for DIVISIONS TODAY. In any case the magisterium decides doctrine not individual opinions no matter how learned

 

[jlhargus]

JL: I can say the same as far as the examples of COOPERATION with Presbyterians and others. Cooperation is a good thing and should be encouraged. Yet cooperation isn’t the unity Christ prayed for and intended. Evidently doctrine does stand in the way for UNITY otherwise you would become one.

JL: Nor do I think they are disloyal to the will of Christ or unsaved. Could you define what you consider minor differences? Is the doctrine of once saved always saved as opposed to one can lose salvation a minor difference? By the way which of the several Methodist Denominations do you belong and which of the three Presbyerian denoninations is accross the street from you? Was it minor or major differences that caused Methodism to split from the Anglicans and then split several time into several different Methodist denominations? Was it minor or major differences that caused Presbyterians to split into three denominations?

JL: Roman16 has to do with those who CAUSE DIVISIONS teaching CONTRARY DOCTRINE they are to be AVODED. Why so many divisions in Protestantism if not doctrinal.

[Rms16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, MARK THEM WHICH CAUSE DIVISIONS and offences CONTRARY TO THE DOCTRINE which ye have learned; and AVOID THEM. 18 For THEY that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

JL: Nor do I think of them as Satan. However I do think Satan is the cause of splits. So you don’t think, one who teaches, once saved always saved contradicts the teaching one can lose salvation? Wouldn’t one of those contradicting teachings be CONTRARY to what Christ taught? They can’t BOTH be TRUE.

[/quote]

 

[Contarini]

contarini,

It used to be sufficient at the time it was developed. The purpose was to unite the various churches with different practices and doctrines. It was known that any church that used that creed was in communion with the others.

Which version?

The original Nicene Creed of 325 lacked an affirmation of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, among other things. Was that Creed sufficient? It was sufficient for the needs of 325–clarifying the divinity of the Son. But the Creed as we have it is the creation of 381, not 325, because the Creed of 325 was no longer “sufficient.” And within a few decades of 381 the Christological controversies had broken out, and new affirmations of faith were thought necessary, though not adding to the Creed itself.

So if the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 (presumably what you mean by the Nicene Creed) was ever thought “sufficient,” it was sufficient for a few decades in the Church’s history.

Now possibly Cyril of Alexandria was wrong in saying that you could be a heretic about Christology even though you adhered to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. There seems to have been much about Cyril’s behavior to Nestorius and others that was unfair. But as a matter of historical record, the Church did not find the Creed of 381 to be sufficient for orthodoxy and communion.

And, of course, there’s the Filioque. If your version of the Creed contains the Filioque, then you have even less of a case. . . .

Edwin

 

[KathleenGee]

The point is, Christ is calling us to something much greater…communion in the Holy Trinity realized in the Bride of Christ.

Christ is testing our faith, just as He did Peter and the apostles at times, and for us, it is to have faith in Christ at work in the 7 sacraments, primarily in the sacrament of Holy Orders…Christ overcame the flesh, sin, and death.

No matter your position in life, before God we are all the same. It revolves around His will, not ours…

And Christ chose to establish His only Church through chosen men. Every priest knows he is undeserving of such a calling, and knows it is only through Christ’s call that he is chosen. We have to accept that…treasures of clay…of which we likewise, can be transformed.

Our communion comes from the Holy Trinity, not from man.

Very solid and comprehensive answers, jlhargus!!

 

[jlhargus]

The point is, Christ is calling us to something much greater…communion in the Holy Trinity realized in the Bride of Christ.

Christ is testing our faith, just as He did Peter and the apostles at times, and for us, it is to have faith in Christ at work in the 7 sacraments, primarily in the sacrament of Holy Orders…Christ overcame the flesh, sin, and death.

No matter your position in life, before God we are all the same. It revolves around His will, not ours…

And Christ chose to establish His only Church through chosen men. Every priest knows he is undeserving of such a calling, and knows it is only through Christ’s call that he is chosen. We have to accept that…treasures of clay…of which we likewise, can be transformed.

Our communion comes from the Holy Trinity, not from man.

Very solid and comprehensive answers, jlhargus!!

JL: Thanks I appreciate that

 

[adf417]

adf,

Hard to know the first split. There has always been variety in our church from the beginning. 3 John discusses an early one.** It is sad that there are so many splits.** I presume you are referring to the 16th century Reformation.

Remember that Martin Luther was excommunicated, so hard to put the blame on him.

Rob

Even you agree it is SAD thing yet it continues to happen which brings me back to the OP.

 

[adf417]

Very solid and comprehensive answers, jlhargus!!

I agree Kathleen but jlhargus, the formating is making my eyes go :hypno:

 

[submariner2]

Which version?

The original Nicene Creed of 325 lacked an affirmation of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, among other things. Was that Creed sufficient? It was sufficient for the needs of 325–clarifying the divinity of the Son. But the Creed as we have it is the creation of 381, not 325, because the Creed of 325 was no longer “sufficient.” And within a few decades of 381 the Christological controversies had broken out, and new affirmations of faith were thought necessary, though not adding to the Creed itself.

So if the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 (presumably what you mean by the Nicene Creed) was ever thought “sufficient,” it was sufficient for a few decades in the Church’s history.

Now possibly Cyril of Alexandria was wrong in saying that you could be a heretic about Christology even though you adhered to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. There seems to have been much about Cyril’s behavior to Nestorius and others that was unfair. But as a matter of historical record, the Church did not find the Creed of 381 to be sufficient for orthodoxy and communion.

And, of course, there’s the Filioque. If your version of the Creed contains the Filioque, then you have even less of a case. . . .

Edwin

Contrarini,

What about the apostles creed? My church recites it every sunday. That ought to be sufficient for even the most nit-picky. It used to be good enough long ago.

Rob