One Church guided by Christ or many churches guided by Christ?

[AmateurPianist]

The Catholic Church and the Lutheran church are 2 separate organizations that comprise one church. Is that what you are suggesting? In other words, JonNC, a Christian belonging to the Lutheran organization and myself, belonging to the Catholic organization, both belong to the same church? I must affably disagree…

Then we must affably disagree.

But the way you are wording it accurately reflects what I believe. In that you are to be commended.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I count 5 separate self governing churches:

1. Catholic Church
2. Eastern Orthodox church, comprised of several utocephalous churches
3. Lutheran church
4. Baptist Church
5. Methodist Church

…and I would count 5 separate self governing organizations within the one church…

 

[JohnVIII]

Dear joe370,

I have 2 replies, reply #1:

Well, technically we’re still looking at** 2 separate self governing churches** comprised of leaders who do not report to any higher-ranking leader, which happen to be united in doctrine, wouldn’t you agree?

The eastern autocephalous churches come pretty darn close to being one church in spite of the fact that they are separate independent self governing churches, but they too are not, in any way, dependent upon any other church.

Your 2nd paragraph seems to be the answer to your 1st. Please tell me how the EO Churches are not one Church, but are only “pretty darn close”. If you were to ask any member of any Orthodox Church they would tell you that it is all one Church, so exactly how are all these people wrong?

Reply #2:

Jesus gave this parable, Luke 16:1-9 with my application of it within “]”'s:

" Now He was also saying to the disciples, “There was a rich man [Jesus] who had a manager [Universal Bishop of Jerusalem], and this manager was reported to him as squandering his possessions. And he called him and said to him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an accounting of your management, for you can no longer be manager.’ The manager said to himself, ‘What shall I do, since my master is taking the management away from me? I am not strong enough to dig; I am ashamed to beg. I know what I shall do, so that when I am removed from the management people will welcome me into their homes.’ And he summoned each one of his master’s debtors, and he began saying to the first [Bishop of Rome], ‘How much do you owe my master?’ And he said, ‘A hundred measures of oil.’ And he said to him, ‘Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.’ Then he said to another [Bishop of Alexandria], ‘And how much do you owe?’ And he said, ‘A hundred measures of wheat.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill, and write eighty.’ And his master praised the unrighteous manager because he had acted shrewdly; for the sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own kind than the sons of light. And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by means of the wealth of unrighteousness, so that when it [the Universal Authority] fails, they [the self-headed bishops] will receive you into the eternal dwellings [the Church]. "

And also Romans 11:26-32:

" All Israel will be saved; just as it is written,

“THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION,
HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB.”
“THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM,
WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS.”

From the standpoint of the gospel they “Jacob”, i.e. James of Jerusalem, i.e. the Universal Authority] are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you once were disobedient [just as the rich man’s manager] to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. For God has shut up all [Universal Authorities] in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all [When any Universal Authority fails God’s grace continues in the Church via “Eternal Dwellings” (plural), which is the Church, within independent jurisdictions]. "

 

[Mberg3]

In 1 Timothy 3:15, Paul calls the church the “pillar and foundation of Truth”. The statement is implicitly stating that there can be only one pillar and foundation and - logically following - that there is only one True Church (Or Church of Truth). The question is which church is that today. I feel as though only the RC and the Orthodox Churches would be bold enough to state that they are infact the pillar and foundation of truth, but I may be mistaken. If you can’t call your church body the Pillar and Foundation of truth I feel as though there is no reason to keep staying in it from a Biblical POV.

 

[joe370]

JohnVIII

Your 2nd paragraph seems to be the answer to your 1st. Please tell me how the EO Churches are not one Church, but are only “pretty darn close”. If you were to ask any member of any Orthodox Church they would tell you that it is all one Church, so exactly how are all these people wrong?

I’ll concede. All of the independent, self governing eastern orthodox churches constitute what is generally known simply as the Orthodox Church. With the exception of the non-Chalcedonian churches.

Happy Thanksgiving brother.

 

[joe370]

…and I would count 5 separate self governing organizations within the one church…

So JonNC, you and myself, all belong to the same church?

By the way, happy Thanksgiving AP!

 

[wisdomseeker]

In 1 Timothy 3:15, Paul calls the church the “pillar and foundation of Truth”. The statement is implicitly stating that there can be only one pillar and foundation and - logically following - that there is only one True Church (Or Church of Truth). The question is which church is that today. I feel as though only the RC and the Orthodox Churches would be bold enough to state that they are infact the pillar and foundation of truth, but I may be mistaken. If you can’t call your church body the Pillar and Foundation of truth I feel as though there is no reason to keep staying in it from a Biblical POV.

Indeed. the CC has the foundation in Jesus HImself. any other has its foundation in man. There is a trend today which the purpose is to bring the CC down to the level of any other religion and it is just another Church among so many others. This is an abomination to our Lord Jesus. Jesus is not just another man like many others. Jesus is God and He has found His Church therefore, she is above all man.

Protestantism is a heresy. protestantism has its foundation in a man. Relativism is rampage and attempt to redefine everything in its way.
Hold on to the True Faith, one that our Lord has giving us from teh beginning. dont let the heresies of relativism infect your mind. Stand with the Saints.

**
“He cannot have God for his Father who does not have the church for his Mother.”-Augustine**

 

[Ladervijd]

It would seem nice to kind of put a common online loose network together,
e.g. (?)
1: xxy.org
2: hindu.org jew.org christian.org muslim.org …
3: e.g., under christian.org: (roman)catholic.org, eastern-orthodox.org, oriental-orthodox.org …
4: …
5: …

With places for stuff …, respectivly directories with links therefor. (kind of depending on personnel and financial capacities)

Or (also), structure based on criteria of locality and language, with churches therein.

So or so, any organization has not only the right for self-presentation, though any (self-declared) christian church which in particular encourages and/or apologizes “moral freedom” as in the lines of everyone is free to rape, murder, etc. since anyone such will be so or so sorted out “in another world” after death, something which is in itself (the point about out sortement) considered as a theologically valid point and as factual, though there is basically (not only) theologically no validity in claiming that any victim deserved such and/or that any victim would automatically go to heaven or paradise (as in a “place” outside the spacetime hereof; though technically, regarding victims, going from hell, to which victim was taken by lesser demon/s, upwards is upwards too) - if such assumption would be made, how the human body works, and feels (which is, partially, subjective) is no evidence to purport such and in fact it seems more likely that victims of violence stay trapped both in the here and in the hereafterkindofinbetween (as ghosts); any such church, or more precise perhaps, any sect, sure doesn’t sound as if it would be family church, neither church where (self-called) priests give each other (repeatedly) fake absolution for particular sins, neither sect/s or church/es which are as ‘one-man kingdom with slaves or similar’, or such. Not attempting to define universal truth here, but trying to make, in a more or less childish way, a point in that anyone who (for) themselves founded a church exploiting and/or serving evil, have not really any place in any (official) communion (unless proper excorcism took place or something in those lines). Though, even the Catholic Church may need “cleansing” now and then. Nevertheless, the criteria on this issue can be a bit dodgy - e.g. (from what I know) there is no prohibition by the Catholic Church for families to read to each other, overally with who happens to be around, the Bible, though that doesn’t mean that every Catholic faithful would necessarily understand and be capable of priesterial duties, or be capable of properly pre-judging things, or be aware of the matters of community and inter-communal things, etcetera. Of which nothing means to diminish the (spiritual) “calling of God”, and of which nothing means to encourage turning away from righteousness, on the contrary.

As for guidance, is the relationship, in particular, between the Church/es and Jesus Christ one of guidance? And if so in any way, is it so foremostly? And, what (kind of) guidance are we talking about here?

 

[joe370]

Sure…there is the Catholic organization, Orthodox organization, Lutheran organization, assorted Baptist organizations, Methodist organizations, etc.

I know that you do not believe it is possible that the church exist in multiple organizations. I don’t see why this is an impossibility (note that I am not claiming this is Fod’s design).

AP, so is it one Church guided by Christ, into all truth, many churches guided by Christ, into all truth, or neither? If neither, then what’s the alternative in your opinion?

 

[AmateurPianist]

So JonNC, you and myself, all belong to the same church?

By the way, happy Thanksgiving AP!

Yup we do.

And a happy belated Thanksgiving to you.

 

[AmateurPianist]

AP, so is it one Church guided by Christ, into all truth, many churches guided by Christ, into all truth, or neither? If neither, then what’s the alternative in your opinion?

One church (which exists in many organizations) guided by Christ into all truth.

I know the next question and the answer is that we are not at the end of the church age yet.

(leaving aside the interpretive issue on whether the “You” in that Scripture refers to the individual, the church, or both…I personally believe it is both but don’t want to argue the point).

 

[Rence]

I am often told that the catholic church was not the only church established by Jesus Christ and therefore was not the only church that existed from the days of Pentecost, leading up to the days of the great 11th century east - west schism, meaning that Jesus must have been the founder of not just one church, but rather many self governing churches, something that could not have been readily witnessed until the 16th century protestant reformation, when Christians, belonging to the one catholic church began to break away from the one catholic church, (for various reasons) - meaning that these break away movements that eventually took on the life of a self governing church(es) were not established by Christ, on Pentecost.

I saw a program on one of networks that said research showed that there were little break-aways here and there during the time after the first died, for various reasons in which people didn’t agree with certain things the leadership was doing – they little groups that broke off from the whole didn’t trust the leadership and thought they weren’t making the right decisions, that they were corrupt, or mistaken, etc. The program said there were always little side factions that were separate from the original group. I guess one can look at it as the one core group as being the “original” Church, but then again, if one was part of the little groups that broke off, one might think that they were the ones faithful to the original, which is why they broke away and of course that would change the perception for those people as to who was ‘orginal’. I wish I could remember the name of the program, and the historians that provided the research. If I come across it again, I’ll let you know.

I don’t think that everyone is on the same page all the time, and with every single issue. People are people, always, and if there is a division among Christians now, there certainly was in the beginning. I can’t see how there wouldn’t be. We’re not all on the same continent, we’re not all in the same country, we’re not all in the same city, every group has its own customs and traditions…those differences in culture will reflect in peoples’ beliefs. Even today, Catholics themselves don’t all do the same things.

Self governing independent churches, appointed by Jesus Christ via His apostles, from the very inception of Christianity that spanned the centuries leading up to the days of the east - west schism, that would not have considered themselves part of the one self governing independent catholic church.

I do believe that Jesus only established one community, but that there were break-offs from near the beginning. That doesn’t mean that Jesus established many communities though. He was at the core of the community He eestablished. But it does mean that depending on what happened at the time, there would be more than one that considered themselves the ‘original’ with “all the rest” as breakoffs. We see this with the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church. Each considers themselves the original, and the other is considered the one that left the original.

By pooling our resources, perhaps, the multitude here at CAF (both catholic and non-catholic) - can reach a consensus as to the exact number of churches that had no affiliation, at any time, with the one catholic church (in other words they were always self governing non-catholic churches since the days of Pentecost) - and yet existed alongside the one catholic church, again, as a separate entity, since the days of Pentecost, leading up to the eventual great 11th century east - west schism?

That would be a really big research project that even the historians haven’t figured out yet. How could they? Small-breakoffs could have been too small to be considered. When the Catholics were in hiding, you can be sure any break-offs were in hiding too.

 

[joe370]

AmateurPianist;8617650]One church (which exists in many organizations) guided by Christ into all truth.

That would seem rather plausible if in fact that one church (which exists in many organizations) - forever guided by Christ into all truth, actually shared only one truth regarding any one doctrine, as opposed to conflicting truths regarding the same doctrine.

If Jesus is guiding His one church, comprised of many isolated organizations, into all truth then all churches should share the same belief regarding the Eucharist, but all churches do not. Surely we are in agreement here, regarding “all truth”?

I know the next question and the answer is that we are not at the end of the church age yet.

(leaving aside the interpretive issue on whether the “You” in that Scripture refers to the individual, the church, or both…I personally believe it is both but don’t want to argue the point).

OK…

 

[joe370]

Rence - I saw a program on one of networks that said research showed that there were little break-aways here and there during the time after the first died, for various reasons in which people didn’t agree with certain things the leadership was doing – they little groups that broke off from the whole didn’t trust the leadership and thought they weren’t making the right decisions, that they were corrupt, or mistaken, etc. The program said there were always little side factions that were separate from the original group. I guess one can look at it as the one core group as being the “original” Church, but then again, if one was part of the little groups that broke off, one might think that they were the ones faithful to the original, which is why they broke away and of course that would change the perception for those people as to who was ‘orginal’. I wish I could remember the name of the program, and the historians that provided the research. If I come across it again, I’ll let you know.

As a former protestant I had often entertained that possibility, but scripture of course, doesn’t support it. Jesus promised to be with His church, guiding His community into all truth, until the end of time, just like you mentioned.

Perhaps if we could determine, by name, who those little groups were that broke away from the original group, we could then determine if all of those groups, or just one of them, were in fact the ones (or one group) - faithful to the original. That seems like a good jumping off point.

I don’t think that everyone is on the same page all the time, and with every single issue. People are people, always, and if there is a division among Christians now, there certainly was in the beginning. I can’t see how there wouldn’t be. We’re not all on the same continent, we’re not all in the same country, we’re not all in the same city, every group has its own customs and traditions…those differences in culture will reflect in peoples’ beliefs. Even today, Catholics themselves don’t all do the same things.

Couldn’t agree more, which is why, maybe, (especially in the beginning) - it is so important to remain faithful to Jesus’ Spirit guided church.

I do believe that Jesus only established one community, but that there were break-offs from near the beginning. That doesn’t mean that Jesus established many communities though. He was at the core of the community He eestablished.

But it does mean that depending on what happened at the time, there would be more than one that considered themselves the ‘original’ with “all the rest” as breakoffs. We see this with the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church. Each considers themselves the original, and the other is considered the one that left the original.

That would be a really big research project that even the historians haven’t figured out yet. How could they? Small-breakoffs could have been too small to be considered. When the Catholics were in hiding, you can be sure any break-offs were in hiding too

In the end, I think it really comes down to either the Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church. The only reason I exclude the Protestant Churches is the fact that the oldest Protestant Church dates back to the 16th century, and therefore was not established by Jesus circa AD 33 on Pentecost, in Jerusalem.

 

[AmateurPianist]

That would seem rather plausible if in fact that one church (which exists in many organizations) - forever guided by Christ into all truth, actually shared only one truth regarding any one doctrine, as opposed to conflicting truths regarding the same doctrine.

If Jesus is guiding His one church, comprised of many isolated organizations, into all truth then all churches should share the same belief regarding the Eucharist, but all churches do not. Surely we are in agreement here, regarding “all truth”?

I think where we disagree interpretively is the verb “guide”.

When I think of the word “guide”, I think of something that happens progressively over time. Thus my comment about “we are no at the end of the church age”. The work of the Holy Spirit in guiding His one church is not yet complete.

 

[joe370]

I think where we disagree interpretively is the verb “guide”.

When I think of the word “guide”, I think of something that happens progressively over time. Thus my comment about “we are no at the end of the church age”. The work of the Holy Spirit in guiding His one church is not yet complete.

Oh, I understand. Hard to really know how differentiate between what is true, doctrinally speaking, and what isn’t, based on that particular model of spiritual guidance.

 

[JonNC]

Not if their doctrines is not in line with the CC and are outside the CC. the One Church is found by Christ and protected by the HS. any outside her is not a church.

Irrelevent to my point. I asked Joe: So, Joe, two separate institutional organizations under two bishops that are autonomous in polity but united in doctrine are one Church. Correct?

I know your contention that The Church is only the Catholic Church, but I didn’t say “The Church”, I said “one Church”

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Well, technically we’re still looking at** 2 separate self governing churches** comprised of leaders who do not report to any higher-ranking leader, which happen to be united in doctrine, wouldn’t you agree?

The eastern autocephalous churches come pretty darn close to being one church in spite of the fact that they are separate independent self governing churches, but they too are not, in any way, dependent upon any other church.

I would contend that they are one Church, comsidering Ephesians 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Jon

 

[AmateurPianist]

Oh, I understand. Hard to really know how differentiate between what is true, doctrinally speaking, and what isn’t, based on that particular model of spiritual guidance.

Perhaps…although from where I sit there is a whole lot of truth that God has guided us in where there is common agreement on (see the creeds…moral theology).

He never promised however that the guidance process would be easy, or His church would not make mistakes in the process of discerning His guidance.

Also if one accepts the premise that the church existing in multiple organizations is not His design (but still possible), then mistakes the church makes has consequences. We will leave it at that.

 

[joe370]

I would contend that they are one Church, comsidering Ephesians 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Jon

Agreed!