The Universal Church

[Lenten_ashes]

Doesn’t sound very ‘universal’ to me.

They don’t even have a universally approved canon in the east. When exploring the RCC and EO churches, I could definitely see the need for a Pope and I understand why Jesus established one for us.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

BTW, This is why I ask for references properly referenced .

…and followthrough in depth of all references gives Newman’s quote “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant” its substance.

Peace!!!

That phrase Newman made famous is, HUGE

 

[mcq72]

We have a problem

Either Calvin mistranslated Eusebius, or maybe Schaff mistranslated Eusebius, but either way we have a confl;ict.

Ok…thanks…i am trying to find another translation, if there is any…otherwise there is no ecplicit rendering of the phrase and perhaps it is only implied , that Calvin indeed took Eusebius to confer that James was bishop of Jerusalem, and presided over Acts council, which was attended by the apostles, hence James being bishop “of the apostles” in this instance in Jerusalem. So Eusebius does not write “bishop of apostles” but only bishop of Jerusalem, and Calvin writes the phrase in commentary to Acts council, partially based on Eusebius…my guess.

 

[lanman87]

BTW, This is why I ask for references properly referenced .

I had never heard/read Calvins saying that Eusebius claimed that James was the Bishop of the Apostles. The only reason I can think that Calvin might make that claim is that James was chosen by the Peter, John and James (the apostle) to be the Bishop of Jerusalem.

From the link you gave

But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.

Also in Book VII Chapter 19

The chair of James, who first received the episcopate of the church at Jerusalem from the Saviour himself and the apostles and who, as the divine records show, was called a brother of Christ

Eusebius seems to indicate that James the Just was chosen by Christ and the Apostles to be the Bishop of Jerusalem. If he was chosen by the Apostles wouldn’t that make James the Bishop of the Apostles?

I’m not necessarily defending Calvin. I’m just pointing out that it isn’t that great a leap in logic.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

We have a problem

Either Calvin mistranslated Eusebius, or maybe Schaff mistranslated Eusebius, but either way we have a confl;ict.

Ok…thanks…

No problem

mcq72:

i am trying to find another translation, if there is any…otherwise there is no ecplicit rendering of the phrase and perhaps it is only implied , that Calvin indeed took Eusebius to confer that James was bishop of Jerusalem, and presided over Acts council, which was attended by the apostles, hence James being bishop “of the apostles” in this instance in Jerusalem. So Eusebius does not write “bishop of apostles” but only bishop of Jerusalem, and Calvin writes the phrase in commentary to Acts council, partially based on Eusebius…my guess.

BTW,

Eusebius is a Catholic bishop.

That said

It looked like Calvin was trying to put his 16th century revolutionary and heretical mindset back onto Eusebius… which when one reads Eusebius, that doesn’t fly.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

BTW, This is why I ask for references properly referenced .

I had never heard/read Calvins saying that Eusebius claimed that James was the Bishop of the Apostles. The only reason I can think that Calvin might make that claim is that James was chosen by the Peter, John and James (the apostle) to be the Bishop of Jerusalem.

From the link you gave

But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.

Also in Book VII Chapter 19

The chair of James, who first received the episcopate of the church at Jerusalem from the Saviour himself and the apostles and who, as the divine records show, was called a brother of Christ

Eusebius seems to indicate that James the Just was chosen by Christ and the Apostles to be the Bishop of Jerusalem. If he was chosen by the Apostles wouldn’t that make James the Bishop of the Apostles?

I’m not necessarily defending Calvin. I’m just pointing out that it isn’t that great a leap in logic.

The link I used, was a translation / edition from Phillip Schaff, a Protestant.

Reading Eusebius, who is a 3rd century Catholic bishop and writer of Church History vs reading from Calvin a 16th century heretic and revolutionary, the difference between them, is startling.

Schaff has his own problems, particularly his footnotes. If interested I’ll give you an example

 

[mcq72]

To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant”

To which I am thankful for the other side presented by C.S. Lewis…

“the unhistorical, without knowing it, are enslaved to a fairly recent past.”

 

[mcq72]

It looked like Calvin was trying to put his 16th century revolutionary and heretical mindset back onto Eusebius… which when one reads Eusebius, that doesn’t fly

I don’t know.

How else do we know James was bishop of Jerusalem? Pretty sure scripture does not say, except that he had a presiding role at Acts council. Is Eusebius the main source for assigning James as bishop of Jerusalem?

 

[mcq72]

and followthrough in depth of all references gives Newman’s quote “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant” its substance.

A bit sectarian, that is true only for Catholics. After all, " protestant" is what the CC called those who tried to reform the CC. That reform was new in only trying to bring back the old.

 

[GKMotley]

"I think no class of men are less enslaved to the past than historians. The unhistorical are usually, without knowing it, enslaved to a fairly recent past.”

“De Descriptione Temporum”

Inaugural Lecture from The Chair of Medieval and Renaissance
Literature at Cambridge University, 1954

Included in SELECTED LITERARY ESSAYS/ (ed. Hooper), chap 1, p.12. 1979 TPB ed.

 

[adf417]

After all, " protestant" is what the CC called those who tried to reform the CC. That reform was new in only trying to bring back the old.

Hmmm, I dont think this label was ever applied to reformers like Catherine of Siena or Thomas More.

Peace!!!

 

[De_Maria]

I take someone to my Elders and local church for instruction. I believe their opinions are correct and the Catholic churches and other churches are wrong so I will submit to the teaching of my local Church.

Ok.

I am not bound by the Catholic church or the church down the street.

Ok.

The big difference is my local church, and most American evangelicals churches, have far less dogma that must be agreed upon than the Catholic church. And I would say that 99% of the time the dogmatic beliefs of the major American Evangelical churches are the same. That is why Baptist and Methodist and Assembly of God and Presbyterians, will at times, worship together, pray together, and support each others ministries. We have some different beliefs and customs but non that will prevent us from being untied in faith and the cause of Christ.

That’s not what it looks like from our perspective.

And when some group comes along like the JW or Mormons who do break the dogmas of American Evangelicalism then we are also united in proclaiming that they are not teaching the Gospel of Christ.

So, keeping what you said above in mind, where’s that universal church you told us about?

I don’t understand this statement. American Evangelicalism defines the universal church as every person who has genuinely been born again by the Spirit and is “In Christ and Christ in them”. The church is visible and located whenever they gather together in His name. Be it in the First Baptist Church in a small southern town or in an underground house church in China.

Is it in your local Church?
Is it in the local Methodist, Assemblies of God or Presbyterian Church?
Is it in the Catholic Church?

Is the body of Christ, divided?

1 Corinthians 1:13 Is Christ divided?..

 

[lanman87]

Is it in your local Church?
Is it in the local Methodist, Assemblies of God or Presbyterian Church?
Is it in the Catholic Church?

If there are people who are true Christians (filled with the Holy Spirit, and faithful follower of Christ) in those assemblies (ecclesias) then the answer to all is “yes”.

1 Corinthians 1:13 Is Christ divided?..

No, we are all connected by the indwelling Holy Spirit which seals us and works in us and guides us to love God and Love others.

 

[lanman87]

So, keeping what you said above in mind, where’s that universal church you told us about?

The universal church isn’t a organization, it is a group of people who have been called and indwelled and empowered by Christ. Those people meet together and form organizations but the universal church is not a earthly kingdom, it is the people of God, empowered by the Spirit of God, doing God’s work, for the Glory of God.

Wherever God’s people are gather together there is the universal church.

 

[De_Maria]

If there are people who are true Christians (filled with the Holy Spirit, and faithful follower of Christ) in those assemblies (ecclesias) then the answer to all is “yes”.

But you only recognize the authority of a local few, to which you subscribe. So, you describe a divided church. Not a united Church.

No, we are all connected by the indwelling Holy Spirit which seals us and works in us and guides us to love God and Love others.

What about the Doctrines which the Church Teaches? Do you deny their importance?

1 Timothy 4:16Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

The universal church isn’t a organization,

On the contrary, it is described as an organization with a hierarchy, in the Scriptures.

it is a group of people who have been called and indwelled and empowered by Christ. Those people meet together and form organizations but the universal church is not a earthly kingdom, it is the people of God, empowered by the Spirit of God, doing God’s work, for the Glory of God.

It is the Kingdom of Jesus Christ.

Wherever God’s people are gather together there is the universal church.

True. But there are still Bishops and priests who rule over us and we must obey. That is from Scripture:

Hebrews 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

King James Version (KJV)

 

[steve-b]

De_Maria:

Is it in your local Church?
Is it in the local Methodist, Assemblies of God or Presbyterian Church?
Is it in the Catholic Church?

If there are people who are true Christians (filled with the Holy Spirit, and faithful follower of Christ) in those assemblies (ecclesias) then the answer to all is “yes”.

lanman87,

Just a few thoughts,

You describe some big IF’s

IF one is filled with the HS. What’s your benchmark for that?

IF one is a faithful follower of Christ . What’s your definition of that?

IF those assemblies are His Church. How do you decide that?

Especially considering​

Jesus requires It’s NOT a suggestion

perfect union in His Church, that He established on Peter and those in union with Peter

HERE AND HERE

I have to ask then

What Protestant , regardless of stripe, given where Protestantism is, can comply with those links?.

lanman87:

No, we are all connected by the indwelling Holy Spirit which seals us and works in us and guides us to love God and Love others.

May I suggest looking again at the IF’s above , and also the following link AND condition

particularly regard the word “abides” HERE and the condition that makes that happen? It is the Eucharist being described here. We abide in Him and He abides in us WHEN we receive the Eucharist faithfully in grace, NOT in mortal sin.

Therefore

Would you agree, given how Jesus said it, That this is a do this or else command He gives us, and not some chummy feeling or suggestion?

 

[TULIPed]

Would you agree, given how Jesus said it, That this is a do this or else command He gives us, and not some chummy feeling or suggestion?

Agree on the command, disagree on the interpretation. My guess is we’ll continue to agree to disagree on the manner in which we get right with Him - or at least parts thereof.

I bet though (we’re blessed to be peacemakers, no?) we would agree much more on the ways in which he told us to get right with each other.

 

[lanman87]

You describe some big IF’s

IF one is filled with the HS. What’s your benchmark for that?

IF one is a faithful follower of Christ . What’s your definition of that?

IF those assemblies are His Church. How do you decide that?

It is not my benchmark. I’m not the one who decides who is a Spirit filled, faithful follower of Christ. That is up to each individual to understand their spiritual state for themselves as they are convicted and shaped by the Spirit. 2 Corinthians 13:5, Romans 8:16, Philippians 2:12

However, the Bible does give several traits or evidence of true followers/believers of Christ.

1. They seek to abstain from sin and are convicted and repent of sinful actions
2. They love God and love others and “love their brother”
3. They pray both for themselves and for others
4. They gather and worship
5. They testify the Jesus is the Christ, the Saviour of the world
6. They give and support ministries and missions
7. They seek to glorify God in everything
8. They get baptized
9. They take the Lord’s Supper
10. Christ is their treasure
11. They confess their sins to one another
12. They bear each others burdens

I could give scriptural references to all of those but I doubt if you disagree with any of those things. And while it is possible to know the Christian culture and do’s and don’ts and fake being a Christian, a good rule of thumb is if they say/do those things then they are a spirit filled follower of Christ.

It is the Eucharist being described here. We abide in Him and He abides in us WHEN we receive the Eucharist faithfully in grace, NOT in mortal sin.

I believe the Lord’s Supper is a physical representation of a Spiritual truth. We Spiritually feast on Christ by seeking after Him, we devour Him by listening to (and reading) the Word, we chew on Him by pondering and understanding who He is and what He has done for us, and we digest Him by faith.

 

[lanman87]

But you only recognize the authority of a local few, to which you subscribe. So, you describe a divided church. Not a united Church.

I voluntarily submit to my local church just as you voluntarily submit to the Catholic church. However, I don’t think my local church is anything more than God’s People gathering together to worship and serve Christ. I believe the Methodist church down the street is also God’s people gathered to worship and serve Christ. And the Assembly of God on the other side of town is God’s people gathered to worship and serve Christ. Whatever divisions we have are overcome by the Grace of God and the Holy Spirit.

What about the Doctrines which the Church Teaches? Do you deny their importance?

I believe the teachings of Christ and the Apostles are the doctrines that we must continue in. I believe most all of American Evangelical churches hold to the teachings of the Apostles in some form or fashion. But I also believe American Evangelicalism has, in some cases, become like the Jews and created man made traditions that they elevate to “dogmatic” or at least as a necessary status. (For instance, my Baptist teaching of no alcoholic beverages ever). The difference is the Baptist (who doesn’t drink) will still fellowship with the Methodist (who has no such prohibition). Of course, I believe the same thing about the Catholic church, even more so.

On the contrary, it is described as an organization with a hierarchy, in the Scriptures

The New Testament describes local churches we are oversaw by elders/bishops/presybters and each church is independent from the others, in the sense that members are only subject to their local elders. There is no church wide hierarchy where one bishop is over multiple churches. That was a later development. A practical development but nevertheless it was not how the first century church was organized.

Hebrews 13:17

Nobody denies (at least non I’m aware of) that God calls and the church affirms some people to be leaders (elders, pastors, presbyters, bishops) of the local church.

 

[TULIPed]

(For instance, my Baptist teaching of no alcoholic beverages ever).

As far as I can tell (based on 90% of the Baptist brothers and sisters that I am friends with), that bit of legalism is only binding within the physical boundaries of the church property…