Many 'different' Churches of the first century?

[Prodigal_Son1]

Through some of the discussions on these forums, I’ve seen some Protestants claim there were different Churches in Asia, following the death and resurrection of Christ, which is being used to insinuate a validation of all the Protestant denominations of today. I’ve also seen some Protestants claim that the letters and epistles of the New Testament were in circulation between those Churches and that the canon only defined what was already known to be scriptures. In my mind, the two claims conflict with each other.

If all the letters and epistles were in circulation between ‘different’ Churches, why is it justifiable to have any differences in beliefs?

Number one, all the letters and epistles support the same view with no contradictions.

Number two, if all the letters and epistles were circulated, certainly the Churches were receiving the same exact teachings.

How does this validate the many Churches as different, as Protestant Churches are today and not the one Church of many locations as the Catholic Church is today?

From what I see in scriptures, we are all to be ONE and of the same mind and judgement, as our Lord prayed for our Apostles to be.

**Joh 10:16 And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.

Eph 4:3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call,
Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.

Rom 16:17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.

1Co 1:10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

Php 2:2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.

Rom 15:5 May the God of steadfastness and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus,
Rom 15:6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Joh 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth.
Joh 17:18 As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.
Joh 17:19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.
Joh 17:20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word,
Joh 17:21 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.
Joh 17:22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,
Joh 17:23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.

1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body–Jews or Greeks, slaves or free–and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

Rom 12:4 For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function,
Rom 12:5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call,

Col 3:15 And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be thankful.**

Please take note that I said, some Protestants claim… This is not a generalization of what I think all Protestants believe. With that caveat in mind, all are invited to join the discussion with their view.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Through some of the discussions on these forums, I’ve seen some Protestants claim there were different Churches in Asia, following the death and resurrection of Christ, which is being used to insinuate a validation of all the Protestant denominations of today. I’ve also seen some Protestants claim that the letters and epistles of the New Testament were in circulation between those Churches and that the canon only defined what was already known to be scriptures. In my mind, the two claims conflict with each other.

If all the letters and epistles were in circulation between ‘different’ Churches, why is it justifiable to have any differences in beliefs?

Number one, all the letters and epistles support the same view with no contradictions.

Number two, if all the letters and epistles were circulated, certainly the Churches were receiving the same exact teachings.

How does this validate the many Churches as different, as Protestant Churches are today and not the one Church of many locations as the Catholic Church is today?

From what I see in scriptures, we are all to be ONE and of the same mind and judgement, as our Lord prayed for our Apostles to be.

**Joh 10:16 And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.

Eph 4:3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call,
Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.

Rom 16:17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.

1Co 1:10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

Php 2:2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.

Rom 15:5 May the God of steadfastness and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus,
Rom 15:6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Joh 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth.
Joh 17:18 As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.
Joh 17:19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.
Joh 17:20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word,
Joh 17:21 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.
Joh 17:22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,
Joh 17:23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.

1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body–Jews or Greeks, slaves or free–and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

Rom 12:4 For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function,
Rom 12:5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call,

Col 3:15 And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be thankful.**

Please take note that I said, some Protestants claim… This is not a generalization of what I think all Protestants believe. With that caveat in mind, all are invited to join the discussion with their view.

I’d like to add one more passage to you list, which is very good. The Christians at Antioch had a doctrinal dispute, and rather than work it out on their own,they sent representatives to the Church leaders for their answer. Here is the response:

Acts 15

22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us **without our authorization **and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing.

 

[crazzeto]

This can even be seen in the Apostles Creed (one of the earliest, if not thee earlierst) and the Constantinople / Nicean creed.

One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’d like to add one more passage to you list, which is very good. The Christians at Antioch had a doctrinal dispute, and rather than work it out on their own,they sent representatives to the Church leaders for their answer. Here is the response:

Acts 15

22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us **without our authorization **and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing.

Thank you, it has been added to my notes.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

There were many “local” churches that where self-governing (autocephalous), but were all in communion with each other and held the same believes. In that regards they where one Church and not many. That was capture in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381: “[We believe] in one holy catholic and apostolic Church” (emphasis added).

The Church is (and always was) one because it shares “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all in all.” (Eph. 4:5-6). It is holy because it was founded by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit. “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of death will not overcome it.” (Matt. 16:18) The Church is also catholic (from the Greek καθολικός - katholicos) because is universal, complete. It refers to the wholeness and totality of all true believers in Jesus Christ. Finally, it is apostolic because it was founded by Jesus Christ through the Apostles. The Church continues to be apostolic through Apostolic Succession, in which the bishops are direct successors of the Apostles. Apostolic also refers to the teachings pass down from the Apostles and contained in Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

I think you are imposing an institutionalism upon Christianity that simply is not present in the First Century.

There were CHRISTIANS. I suppose a case could be made that Mary was the first, so such has existed since The Annunciation. There have been Christians since then (the gates of hell has not stopped such). There are perhaps 2 billion today, perhaps 5 billion if we include those who have gone before us. These 5 billion believers are the corpus of believers, the body of Christ, the one and holy and catholic church, the communion of saints, the mystical union of believers, the community of faith. There is a certain mystical union - so Scripture does at times speak of such in the singular to speak of this whole corpus of believers. But such refers to BELIEVERS, not to any geopolitical/legal/institutional/denominational entity. Rather like the distinction between Americans and The United States of America. The first is a corpus of people, the second a legal/political, institutional, organzational entity.

Now, it’s true - even in Scripture - we see Christians coming together physically, in a given place and time. This is a secondary meaning to the word “church” (gathering, assembly) - a local, physical one. “The the Church at Ephesis.” We see THIS use often in the plural “To the Seven Churches” for example in Revelation. This use is not “THE Church” but rather this secondary use - a collection of Christians in a given place and time. But even here, all the biblical references are clearly to PEOPLE and not to the institution per se. The church even here is believers, people. But yes, I think there were probably dozens of such local gatherings of believers by the end of the first century - perhaps even hundreds. Since Christianity was extremely informal, largely an underground movement, illegal and “on the run” - it did not lend itself to institutional, geopolical/legal entities. It meet secretly in homes.

While we can see a bit of cooperation in the NT between these local gatherings, there’s nothing to suggest a denomination. In fact, there’s nothing to suggest such until the forth century - and that came about in direct response to the legalization of Christianity and especially the Roman Government (and the Imperial desire) for structure and institutionalism. I don’t think we can speak of anything denominational until the 4th century - so in THAT sense, there was no “church” in the first century.

.

 

[chessmane4e5]

History shows that since the time of Peter, there has been one Church. Around 100 A.D. St Ignatius first used the word Catholic, which simply means universal. I have just read “Upon This Rock” by Stephen Ray, very good read There is every indication from the writings of the Early Church Fathers that all the Churches were one, and they all submitted to the Authority of the Church in Rome. There is not one piece of evidence to suggest otherwise. I know an argument from silence is not 100% proof, but makes me wonder

 

[chessmane4e5]

.While we can see a bit of cooperation in the NT between these local gatherings, there’s nothing to suggest a denomination. In fact, there’s nothing to suggest such until the forth century - and that came about in direct response to the legalization of Christianity and especially the Roman Government (and the Imperial desire) for structure and institutionalism. I don’t think we can speak of anything denominational until the 4th century - so in THAT sense, there was no “church” in the first century.

But, it has been just over 4 centuries since the Reformation. Do you see anyway that all the Christian denominations could in anyway be reconciled and be said to all believe the same thing?

All the early Churches believed the same thing. They shared information, they listen to Rome, they were One.

If it was merely the legalization of Christianity, then I find it almost impossible that all those Churches would suddenly become one, unless they had always been one.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

.I think you are imposing an institutionalism upon Christianity that simply is not present in the First Century.

Rather like the distinction between Americans and The United States of America. The first is a corpus of people, the second a legal/political, institutional, organzational entity.

If what you say is true, isn’t belonging to the Lutheran Church institutionalizing the Church? Isn’t that imposing an institutionalism upon Christianity? Isn’t that a legal/political, institutional, organizational entity?

 

[AmateurPianist]

I don’t like either option actually.

We know that in 52 AD (St.) Thomas founded an assembly of believers in Kerela India.

We also know that due to travel and distance limitations, if there was a central authority in the West (Rome) that the Christians in Kerela were not plugged into it.

The article I: cited indicates the next contact the Kerela Christians had with outsiders is with the Syrian Orthodox (presumably Oriental Orthodox) in 345.

So my point being to the extent that Christianity developed in the west after 52 AD, there is no guarantee that it would have developed the same for the Christians in Kerela.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

How does this validate the many Churches as different, as Protestant Churches are today and not the one Church of many locations as the Catholic Church is today?

From what I see in scriptures, we are all to be ONE and of the same mind and judgement, as our Lord prayed for our Apostles to be.

I think you are imposing an INSTITUTIONAL paradigm onto the Scriptures you quote; imposing something foreign.

1Co 1:10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

Php 2:2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.

Yes, these two Scriptures do seem to suggest that we SHOULD have doctrinal unity. I don’t think that’s the major thrust of Scripture, but yes - you found these two verses, and we do need to address that issue, too.

It suggest TWO things:

1. WHAT do we need to agree upon? WHAT is the corpus of teachings that is NECESSARY to uphold? The church has always struggled with that (I have my view; you’d disagree). Some suggest that The Apostle’s and Nicene Creed were, at least partly, intended to do just that. I’m not sure about that. But, my days in Catholicism revealed that CATHOLICS are just as “divided” and have just as large a range of views as one would find in any Protestant church. The Catholic Church has NEVER demanded absolute agreement on EVERYTHING - it has constantly defined what is and is not doctrine. It constantly moves the posts (to the frustartion of Lutherans, LOL) but it DOES set the goal posts. We simply are not in agreement as to WHAT we need to agree upon. My Catholic Catechism as 800 pages in it, my Lutheran one has 8 pages in it, lol.
2. The reality is that The Catholic Church is in official and formal and current agreement with only ONE: itself. It has a unity of ONE: self with self. That has no bearing on whether it is correct or not, I’m not suggesting otherwise, but friend, AT LEAST as much can be said for all other denominations, too. AT THE VERY LEAST, every one is in full, formal, offical, and current agreement with itself in all matters that itself currently declares as right for it to be in agreement. So what? Is THAT your definition of being in agreement? Sure - every denomination, every institution, every teacher agrees with SELF (officially, formally and currently) in all matters that SELF things it good to agree upon. The Catholic Church is no worse than any other in this regard, but it’s far from any better. Is THAT the unity of mind that you think Paul is seeking? Self alone agreeing with self alone - and only formally, officially and currently, and only in what self alone thinks there should be agreement about? If so, we disagree.

IF you embrace that Christians should agree WITH EACH OTHER, and not just that each denomination should agree with itself alone - and that only formally, officially, currently and in the matters that self alone degrees and essential to agree upon, then we need to determine HOW we are going to do that? Especially with ONE (The Catholic Church) comes to the “table” insisting, “I alone cannot be wrong, I’m infallible, I’m unaccountable, all must just accept whatever I alone say with docility?” In THAT mileau, how do we proceed to do the thing you believe is so important?

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[chessmane4e5]

IF you embrace that Christians should agree WITH EACH OTHER, and not just that each denomination should agree with itself alone - and that only formally, officially, currently and in the matters that self alone degrees and essential to agree upon, then we need to determine HOW we are going to do that? Especially with ONE (The Catholic Church) comes to the “table” insisting, “I alone cannot be wrong, I’m infallible, I’m unaccountable, all must just accept whatever I alone say with docility?” In THAT mileau, how do we proceed to do the thing you believe is so important?

Easy, everyone should just follow Christ

Especially Matt 16:13-19 where Jesus appointed Peter as the Pope (leader) of the Church, and which the RCC has continued to maintain.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

If what you say is true, isn’t belonging to the Lutheran Church institutionalizing the Church? Isn’t that imposing an institutionalism upon Christianity? Isn’t that a legal/political, institutional, organizational entity?

Yes, The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod IS a legal/political, institutional, organizational entity. However, it does not remotely claim that it is the one and holy and catholic church - the communion of saints. It is a legal association of congregations, which in turn is an institution formed by CHRISTIANS - who are, together, a tiny subset of the church. You seem to be imposing an institutional paradigm were none is implied or embraced.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

In the first century? Let’s see what someone in the second century has to say about that:

The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,” (Eph 1:10) and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven” and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess (Phi 2:10-11) to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send “spiritual wickednesses,” (Eph 6:12) and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.

As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shineth everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it. [Saint Irenaeus, *Against Heresies I, 10:1-2]

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I think you are imposing an INSTITUTIONAL paradigm onto the Scriptures you quote; imposing something foreign.

How is the Lutheran Church any different?

Yes, these two Scriptures do seem to suggest that we SHOULD have doctrinal unity. I don’t think that’s the major thrust of Scripture, but yes - you found these two verses, and we do need to address that issue, too.

It suggest TWO things:

1. WHAT do we need to agree upon? WHAT is the corpus of teachings that is NECESSARY to uphold? The church has always struggled with that (I have my view; you’d disagree). Some suggest that The Apostle’s and Nicene Creed were, at least partly, intended to do just that. I’m not sure about that. But, my days in Catholicism revealed that CATHOLICS are just as “divided” and have just as large a range of views as one would find in any Protestant church. The Catholic Church has NEVER demanded absolute agreement on EVERYTHING - it has constantly defined what is and is not doctrine. It constantly moves the posts (to the frustartion of Lutherans, LOL) but it DOES set the goal posts. We simply are not in agreement as to WHAT we need to agree upon. My Catholic Catechism as 800 pages in it, my Lutheran one has 8 pages in it, lol.

Were not the original Churches divided, evident by the letters of correction? Seems the laity always requires unification.

Disagreeing, in itself, is not being of the same mind and judgment. It does not matter that you Catechism and the Catholic Catechism has a huge variance in doctrines.

1. The reality is that The Catholic Church is in official and formal and current agreement with only ONE: itself. It has a unity of ONE: self with self. That has no bearing on whether it is correct or not, I’m not suggesting otherwise, but friend, AT LEAST as much can be said for all other denominations, too. AT THE VERY LEAST, every one is in full, formal, offical, and current agreement with itself in all matters that itself currently declares as right for it to be in agreement. So what? Is THAT your definition of being in agreement? Sure - every denomination, every institution, every teacher agrees with SELF (officially, formally and currently) in all matters that SELF things it good to agree upon. The Catholic Church is no worse than any other in this regard, but it’s far from any better. Is THAT the unity of mind that you think Paul is seeking? Self alone agreeing with self alone - and only formally, officially and currently, and only in what self alone thinks there should be agreement about? If so, we disagree.

IF you embrace that Christians should agree WITH EACH OTHER, and not just that each denomination should agree with itself alone - and that only formally, officially, currently and in the matters that self alone degrees and essential to agree upon, then we need to determine HOW we are going to do that? Especially with ONE (The Catholic Church) comes to the “table” insisting, “I alone cannot be wrong, I’m infallible, I’m unaccountable, all must just accept whatever I alone say with docility?” In THAT mileau, how do we proceed to do the thing you believe is so important?

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

Let’s just look at two doctrines that the Lutheran and Catholic Church have similarities in, yet many other Protestant denominations reject; real presence and confession.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t like either option actually.

We know that in 52 AD (St.) Thomas founded an assembly of believers in Kerela India.

We also know that due to travel and distance limitations, if there was a central authority in the West (Rome) that the Christians in Kerela were not plugged into it.

The article I: cited indicates the next contact the Kerela Christians had with outsiders is with the Syrian Orthodox (presumably Oriental Orthodox) in 345.

So my point being to the extent that Christianity developed in the west after 52 AD, there is no guarantee that it would have developed the same for the Christians in Kerela.

So, you think Thomas had different beliefs than the other Apostles?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

Yes, these two Scriptures do seem to suggest that we SHOULD have doctrinal unity. I don’t think that’s the major thrust of Scripture, but yes - you found these two verses, and we do need to address that issue, too.

It suggest TWO things:

1. WHAT do we need to agree upon? WHAT is the corpus of teachings that is NECESSARY to uphold? The church has always struggled with that (I have my view; you’d disagree). Some suggest that The Apostle’s and Nicene Creed were, at least partly, intended to do just that. I’m not sure about that. But, my days in Catholicism revealed that CATHOLICS are just as “divided” and have just as large a range of views as one would find in any Protestant church. The Catholic Church has NEVER demanded absolute agreement on EVERYTHING - it has constantly defined what is and is not doctrine. It constantly moves the posts (to the frustartion of Lutherans, LOL) but it DOES set the goal posts. We simply are not in agreement as to WHAT we need to agree upon. My Catholic Catechism as 800 pages in it, my Lutheran one has 8 pages in it, lol.
2. The reality is that The Catholic Church is in official and formal and current agreement with only ONE: itself. It has a unity of ONE: self with self. That has no bearing on whether it is correct or not, I’m not suggesting otherwise, but friend, AT LEAST as much can be said for all other denominations, too. AT THE VERY LEAST, every one is in full, formal, offical, and current agreement with itself in all matters that itself currently declares as right for it to be in agreement. So what? Is THAT your definition of being in agreement? Sure - every denomination, every institution, every teacher agrees with SELF (officially, formally and currently) in all matters that SELF things it good to agree upon. The Catholic Church is no worse than any other in this regard, but it’s far from any better. Is THAT the unity of mind that you think Paul is seeking? Self alone agreeing with self alone - and only formally, officially and currently, and only in what self alone thinks there should be agreement about? If so, we disagree.

IF you embrace that Christians should agree WITH EACH OTHER, and not just that each denomination should agree with itself alone - and that only formally, officially, currently and in the matters that self alone degrees and essential to agree upon, then we need to determine HOW we are going to do that? Especially with ONE (The Catholic Church) comes to the “table” insisting, “I alone cannot be wrong, I’m infallible, I’m unaccountable, all must just accept whatever I alone say with docility?” In THAT mileau, how do we proceed to do the thing you believe is so important?

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

But, it has been just over 4 centuries since the Reformation. Do you see anyway that all the Christian denominations could in anyway be reconciled and be said to all believe the same thing?

Again, you are working form an institutional paradigm, I’m not.

Again, if we are to agree “in mind” then that requires two things:

1. We agree on WHAT we need to agree upon. We don’t.
2. We form some process to develop that. That’s not possible in the present mileau - created by and held most firmly by The Catholic Church that - “I alone am right, I alone am infallible and unaccountable, I am the sole interpeter, the sole authority, the sole arbiter, what I alone say is just to be accepted with docility.”

Again, you seem to be ignoring the reality that The Catholic Church has such “unity” ONLY with one - itself. And that ONLY officially, formally, currently and only on the issues that it alone currently declares right for agreement. It is NO BETTER than any other denomination in this regard, and worse than most. You seem to be confusing self agreeing with self alone (and that only officially, currently and in what self alone thinks should be agreed upon) with Christians agreeing with EACH OTHER. Friend, just like the Catholic Church, self always agrees with self. We don’t have to seek that. What seems to be the call of these 2 Scriptures is that WE agree with EACH OTHER.

.

 

[AmateurPianist]

So, you think Thomas had different beliefs than the other Apostles?

That is not my point.

Everyone agrees that Christianity developed from the apostolic Christianity of the earliest church. Now whether this development is a good thing is debatable but anyway.

To the extent that it developed in the West, there is no guarantee that parallel developments occurred in Kerela.

Even if the church of that period was centrally organized, I think you are underestimating the impact that distance and travel limitations would have on the church.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Again, you are working form an institutional paradigm, I’m not.

Again, if we are to agree “in mind” then that requires two things:

1. We agree on WHAT we need to agree upon. We don’t.
2. We form some process to develop that. That’s not possible in the present mileau - created by and held most firmly by The Catholic Church that - “I alone am right, I alone am infallible and unaccountable, I am the sole interpeter, the sole authority, the sole arbiter, what I alone say is just to be accepted with docility.”

Actually I thought my post was clearly referring to the Protestant denominations reconciling. If not, then that is what I purpose.

Either way, how can you say the Church today would be the one to prevent this when in 4 A.D. you the Catholic Church did unite all the “different” churches? Of course I believe they were all the “same” which therefore has nothing to do with Christianity being made legal. The Early Churches were all One denomination in that they all believed the same thing. Had they believed different things, their is no way they could have come together in 4A.D. simply because Christianity was legalized. There would have been a lot of fighting over who had it right. Yet we find a very simple Council where little was discussed (The Creed mostly).

Again, you seem to be ignoring the reality that The Catholic Church has such “unity” ONLY with one - itself. And that ONLY officially, formally, currently and only on the issues that it alone currently declares right for agreement. It is NO BETTER than any other denomination in this regard, and worse than most. You seem to be confusing self agreeing with self alone (and that only officially, currently and in what self alone thinks should be agreed upon) with Christians agreeing with EACH OTHER. Friend, just like the Catholic Church, self always agrees with self. We don’t have to seek that. What seems to be the call of these 2 Scriptures is that WE agree with EACH OTHER.

This only seems to support the Catholic view, namely that the Catholic Church has been the same since the Apostles. If all the Churches agreed at 4 A.D., then they were the same.

Are you saying they were all independent, like the Protestant Churches today? If so, then this makes no sense, as we have seen what happens after 3 or 4 centuries of interpreting the Bible. You can see the main divisions here

But history shows that since the time of Peter, their was One Church, and that Church followed the Church in Rome and their Pope (Bishop).

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That is not my point.

Everyone agrees that Christianity developed from the apostolic Christianity of the earliest church. Now whether this development is a good thing is debatable but anyway.

To the extent that it developed in the West, there is no guarantee that parallel developments occurred in Kerela.

Even if the church of that period was centrally organized, I think you are underestimating the impact that distance and travel limitations would have on the church.

I am not underestimating the distances. I have often used that argument on those who believe that the letters and epistles were so widely in circulation.

The point of this discussion is that the Churches were of the same mind and judgment. The Apostles went out with the same message and started Churches in all the nations.