More than one denomination?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mrs_abbott
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mrs_abbott

Guest
Romans 16:4 states:
who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I am grateful but also all the churches of the Gentiles;

I know there’s more context to this verse but the part I bolded indicates that more than one religion exists because otherwise wouldn’t Paul have said “the church of the Gentiles”? Plus, he expressed gratitude to them. Why would he do that if the CC is supposed to be the one and only true church? :confused:
 
So you take this to mean that Paul was condoning multiple religions?
I think I should ask you about the scripture in

John 17? :confused:

Maybe you can help me understand that discourse.
 
The Church was one in faith and baptism, but it was not, at the time, racially one. Most of the churches/parishes Paul was referring to, in the passage you cited, had all Gentile members, unlike others that had all Jewish members. This is why he stressed that we are no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or freemen, but all one in Christ. He wished to see such man-made boundaries dissolve. At the same time, he was acknowledging a reality of his time without making any comment on the situation in the passage you cited. 🙂
 
mrs_abbott said:
Romans 16:4 states:
who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I am grateful but also all the churches of the Gentiles;
Click to expand...
I would tend to think of Paul’s statements on “churches” as similar to the present-day parishes. There are many church buildings and church communities within the Catholic Church, but that doesn’t diminish their unity as part of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. Even today, some Catholic parishes are seen as the “Italian parish” or the “Polish parish”, etc., but they’re all Catholic!
 
mrs_abbott said:
Romans 16:4 states:
who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I am grateful but also all the churches of the Gentiles;

I know there’s more context to this verse but the part I bolded indicates that more than one religion exists because otherwise wouldn’t Paul have said “the church of the Gentiles”? Plus, he expressed gratitude to them. Why would he do that if the CC is supposed to be the one and only true church? :confused:
Click to expand...
He’s talking about local churches.

Edwin
 
How do you know for sure?

New Testament Greek dictionaries. The one I looked in says that Paul uses the word ethnos to refer to Gentile Christians, as opposed to ioudaios which he uses when he refers to Jewish Christians.

The word preceding ethnos in this verse is ekklesia, which means assembly or gathering.

We translate ‘assemblies of Gentile Christians’ as ‘Gentile churches’. So Paul is speaking not of different religions, but just of different assemblies of Christians.
 
Talmida said:
How do you know for sure?

New Testament Greek dictionaries. The one I looked in says that Paul uses the word ethnos to refer to Gentile Christians, as opposed to ioudaios which he uses when he refers to Jewish Christians.

The word preceding ethnos in this verse is ekklesia, which means assembly or gathering.

We translate ‘assemblies of Gentile Christians’ as ‘Gentile churches’. So Paul is speaking not of different religions, but just of different assemblies of Christians.
Click to expand...
I swear, I just need to learn more Greek and then it might make more sense to me. :o
 
mrs_abbott said:
How do you know, though, for sure?
Click to expand...
From looking at the context. Paul uses the word “church” (ekklesia) to mean a local body all the time. In fact, this is one reason many scholars think Ephesians and Colossians are not by Paul, because they use the word “ekklesia” in a universal sense. In the earlier, undisputed letters “ekklesia” always (as far as I can think at the moment) means a local congregation.

Actually, if you are interested in making an argument against your own Church, the fact that you find the use of the word “church” for a local congregation so odd would be one of the best. It shouldn’t seem strange to you at all–it isn’t strange in the NT.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
From looking at the context. Paul uses the word “church” (ekklesia) to mean a local body all the time. In fact, this is one reason many scholars think Ephesians and Colossians are not by Paul, because they use the word “ekklesia” in a universal sense. In the earlier, undisputed letters “ekklesia” always (as far as I can think at the moment) means a local congregation.

Actually, if you are interested in making an argument against your own Church, the fact that you find the use of the word “church” for a local congregation so odd would be one of the best. It shouldn’t seem strange to you at all–it isn’t strange in the NT.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Not really strange, just leans more toward my theory that everytime “church” is mentioned in the Bible, it’s more plausible to see it as “body of believers”, instead of just one particular denomination.
 
The other option, of course is that Paul was a relativist. And condoned many religions in the name of Christ.

Why not drag Paul into the scrutiny? Muslims say Paul was a liar. Just ask InJesus. Why not speculate he endorsed multiplue religions?

No chance. I will not speculate upon a single verse in the bible that Paul was against the discourse in John I cited.

Try again. Twist the scripture all you want to to justify your yearnings.

Its hardly convinced anyone here yet. From what I can see, unless you can also talk them into your unique ideas about Christ on another thread.

Sorry Mrs Abbott, but your understanding of scripture seems to be what you want it to be, and not what it actually is.
 
The other option, of course is that Paul was a relativist. And condoned many religions in the name of Christ.

Why not drag Paul into the scrutiny? Muslims say Paul was a liar. Just ask InJesus. Why not speculate he endorsed multiplue religions?

No chance. I will not speculate upon a single verse in the bible that Paul was against the discourse in John I cited.

Try again. Twist the scripture all you want to to justify your yearnings.

Its hardly convinced anyone here yet. From what I can see, unless you can also talk them into your unique ideas about Christ on another thread.

Sorry Mrs Abbott, but your understanding of scripture seems to be what you want it to be, and not what it actually is.
 
mrs_abbott said:
Not really strange, just leans more toward my theory that everytime “church” is mentioned in the Bible, it’s more plausible to see it as “body of believers”, instead of just one particular denomination.
Click to expand...
There were no denominations then. There was the Catholic Church.

IF there were others -, what were they?

Invisible church theory? Scripture negates that one.
 
mrs_abbott said:
Not really strange, just leans more toward my theory that everytime “church” is mentioned in the Bible, it’s more plausible to see it as “body of believers”, instead of just one particular denomination.
Click to expand...
No one says it is “one particular denomination.” The Catholic Church does not claim to be one particular denomination.

How does Paul’s use of the word to mean a local congregation support your interpretation?

In Ephesians and Colossians it does seem to mean the universal body of believers, which is the Mystical Body of Christ. However, just as 1 Corinthians insists on the unity of the local body, so Ephesians and Colossians insist on the unity of the universal, mystical Body. This is non-negotiable.

Edwin
 
God bless you Edwin, for your kind and very excellent replies.

You are amazing to me. 🙂
 
In browsing the Forum, this thread caught my eye because some Protestants do not see any scandal in denominationalism, which is often used by Catholic apologists to “prove” the error of private interpretation of Scripture vs the Magisterium’s final authority in these matters.

Also, John 17:21 is where Jesus prays “…that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.” Having many church denominations, as with Protestant and non-denominational believers, appears to go against Christ’s wish and is evidence of what happens when there is no unity under the “one, holy, Catholic Church,” and its Magisterium.

However, non-catholic christians counter this argument, saying that there IS unity among Bible believers because they all follow the essential doctrines of Christianity as found in the Scriptures, and that their spiritual unity also remains. Their differences are only in externals–e.g., church government and organization, conduct of religious services, the administration of baptism, etc.

Protestants follow Jesus’ injunction in John 13:35: “This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Protestants and other Bible Christians claim more unity in essential biblical belief and practice than have Catholics who follow unbiblical Traditions which separate them from Truth.

I apologize if my comments are not directly to the point and intention of your subject matter. My hope is that although we have denominational diversity in Christianity, we all can agree on some essentials regarding the Trinity, Morality, Salvation, and the Last Things even if we don’t agree on the makeup of Scripture, validity of Tradition, Sacraments, the Virgin Mary, Purgatory, etc.
 
In the beginning of the Book of Revelation there is mention of the many churches of Asia Minor. These were not Jewish churches because they were outside of the Holy Land therefore making them Gentile. This is very standard language of the time. Just because there is mentioned the word churches, it does not mean that each is a different religion. This is adequately stated in the above posts.
As St. Ignatius of Antioch was led through the region to be martyred, he wrote letters to the church in each city he passed through. This would be odd behavior if each “church” was autonomous on their own and separate from each other.

mdcpensive1
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top