What does 'Church no, Jesus yes' mean?

[Esdra]

Hey Brother, I see you from Austria…My grandfather (Arva) came from Austria in 1906
to Ellis island…He was in the Kaiser’s army (took care of the horses…God bless…

Hi brother,

I think we have already talked about that per PM.

Interesting, the granddad of my dad was also in the Kaiser’s army in WW I and also took care of the horses!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

"17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you. " (Hebrews 13:17, NASB)

Well, in Baptist Churches some kind of authority has the pastor and the elders…
In the Pentecostal Churches there is normally no authority at all!

But actually, I don’t really get your point.

Yes, this verse DOES speak of obeying the leaders…

a little bit

in Christ,

I was trying to see your understanding of ‘obey your leaders’ because you said, ‘In the Baptist and other anabaptist Churches there is no authority.’ Obeying leaders gives a clear example of authority in the Church, at least in my understanding.

It’s curious to see ‘Bible’ Churches overlook some specific statements in scriptures.

Where do ‘some’ Protestant leaders receive their ‘authority’ and please use examples in scriptures to support the reception of authority?

 

[Hiskid1973]

Hi brother,

I think we have already talked about that per PM.

We did ? …man I’m getting old… … You could be one of the relatives I don’t know but pray for…

 

[Esdra]

We did ? …man I’m getting old… … You could be one of the relatives I don’t know but pray for…

Well, depending on from where in the Austrian-Hungerian Empire he was, probably!

Don’t worry that you don’t remember, I only know that we have been talking about our grandfathers, but not what exactly we were talking. And I am 90% sure that I am younger than you are!

 

[Esdra]

I was trying to see your understanding of ‘obey your leaders’ because you said, ‘In the Baptist and other anabaptist Churches there is no authority.’ Obeying leaders gives a clear example of authority in the Church, at least in my understanding.

It’s curious to see ‘Bible’ Churches overlook some specific statements in scriptures.

Where do ‘some’ Protestant leaders receive their ‘authority’ and please use examples in scriptures to support the reception of authority?

Hm that’s strange, brother. Actually I’ve thought before I’ve switched off the computer that I had answered you. - But there is no post?!
Seems that I have erred.

There is an authority in the sense that the pastors and elders are leaders to whom one has to obey. From my understanding pastors and leaders are people who have the gift of God called “leading”. Everyone in such churches has it’s own gift by God with which he can serve the Church and God. Either singing, or preaching, or cleaning, or doing all the technical stuff like operating the computers or the loudspeakers etc.

I think we have already discussed the topic “Authority” in another thread some time ago.
As far as I can remember, I’ve told you what I know and think. - And to be perfectly honest, I don’t think I’ve new insight for you concerning this matter.

in Christ,

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Hm that’s strange, brother. Actually I’ve thought before I’ve switched off the computer that I had answered you. - But there is no post?!
Seems that I have erred.

There is an authority in the sense that the pastors and elders are leaders to whom one has to obey. From my understanding pastors and leaders are people who have the gift of God called “leading”. Everyone in such churches has it’s own gift by God with which he can serve the Church and God. Either singing, or preaching, or cleaning, or doing all the technical stuff like operating the computers or the loudspeakers.

I think we have already discussed the topic “Authority” in another thread some time ago.
As far as I can remember, I’ve told you what I know and think. - And to be perfectly honest, I don’t think I’ve new insight for you concerning this matter.

in Christ,

Yes, I think we have discussed authority before. Many discussions are repeated here.

The only thing left, which I assume we will disagree on, is ‘apostolic succession’. Scriptures show, what I believe is, apostolic succession through the Apostles, when they chose Matthias, Acts 6 where those chosen by the people were prayed over and had hands imposed upon them by the Apostles, and Paul’s references of Timothy’s authority through the imposition of hands. The ‘imposition of hands’ was always performed by one of authority.

With that stated, can you show me the scriptures to support the ‘leading’ you referenced? Maybe we can cross reference and see if anyone received the leading without the support, or endorsement, of someone of authority.

 

[Esdra]

Yes, I think we have discussed authority before. Many discussions are repeated here.

The only thing left, which I assume we will disagree on, is ‘apostolic succession’. Scriptures show, what I believe is, apostolic succession through the Apostles, when they chose Matthias, Acts 6 where those chosen by the people were prayed over and had hands imposed upon them by the Apostles, and Paul’s references of Timothy’s authority through the imposition of hands. The ‘imposition of hands’ was always performed by one of authority.

With that stated, can you show me the scriptures to support the ‘leading’ you referenced? Maybe we can cross reference and see if anyone received the leading without the support, or endorsement, of someone of authority.

Okay,

our pastor has used these verses down here once concerning this matter:

"1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.
3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another **faith **by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of ***healing ***by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. " (1 Cor 12:1-11)

Okay, I’ve marked underlined and bold what I think to be important from these verses.
I am not sure if this was what you meant… (?)

in Christ,

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Okay,

our pastor has used these verses down here once concerning this matter:

"1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.
3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another **faith **by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of ***healing ***by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. " (1 Cor 12:1-11)

Okay, I’ve marked underlined and bold what I think to be important from these verses.
I am not sure if this was what you meant… (?)

in Christ,

Yes, I recognize that passage, and know of another.

If we read the entire chapter we see that God set those in the Church. Paul even lists the offices of the early Church in the order of the hierarchy, ‘first’, ‘secondly’, ‘thirdly’, and ‘after that’.

1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.

What is missing from that chapter is the explanation of the authority being rightfully given to those offices, according to other areas of scriptures that do give explanation of ‘praying over and imposing hands’ from the Apostles. Wouldn’t the confirmation of an ‘office’ in the Church be important?

1 Corinthians are letters of instructions to the Church. Some of those instructions include " Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment."

Now, there are many ‘offices’ in the Church, but it is still one Church with instructions to be ‘perfect in the same mind and judgment’.

As we have many denominations today, it seems to be against what Paul spoke of in Corinthians.

1Co 1:11 For it hath been signified unto me, my brethren, of you, by them that are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

If the Church is meant to be one, how can many people of different ‘minds and judgments’ be a legitimate authority within the Church?

Just from the few passages being referenced in this thread, we see Paul placed an importance upon Christ’s Church and viewed differences as ‘Christ divided’. Can we still say ‘Church no, Jesus yes’ and claim to know Jesus fully with the appearances of ‘Christ divided’?

 

[TimothyH]

I think though that for clarity’s sake this isn’t a “protestant” saying so much as a evangelical, non-denominational or neo-Christian saying.

Good point. Thank you for bringing it up and for taking me to task.

I am cautious about equating Evangelicalism with Protestantism. For one thing, many of my Evangelical friends are very quick to distance themselves from mainstream Protestant denomination as they are from Catholicism. On the other side of the coin, my best friend who is a Methodist pastor, bristled when he read in “Confessions of a Mega-Church Pastor” by Allen Hunt (who ought to know better) that Protestants believe that communion is only symbolic. To Methodists, it is still bread but they believe it is a "Channel of Grace.

My point is that there is a divide between non-denominational Evangelicalism and mainstream Protestantism that is sometimes as wide as the divide between Catholicism and mainstream Protestantism. You are right for bringing it up.

-Tim-

 

[Esdra]

Yes, I recognize that passage, and know of another.

If we read the entire chapter we see that God set those in the Church. Paul even lists the offices of the early Church in the order of the hierarchy, ‘first’, ‘secondly’, ‘thirdly’, and ‘after that’.

What is missing from that chapter is the explanation of the authority being rightfully given to those offices, according to other areas of scriptures that do give explanation of ‘praying over and imposing hands’ from the Apostles. Wouldn’t the confirmation of an ‘office’ in the Church be important?

1 Corinthians are letters of instructions to the Church. Some of those instructions include " Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment."

Now, there are many ‘offices’ in the Church, but it is still one Church with instructions to be ‘perfect in the same mind and judgment’.

As we have many denominations today, it seems to be against what Paul spoke of in Corinthians.

If the Church is meant to be one, how can many people of different ‘minds and judgments’ be a legitimate authority within the Church?

Just from the few passages being referenced in this thread, we see Paul placed an importance upon Christ’s Church and viewed differences as ‘Christ divided’. Can we still say ‘Church no, Jesus yes’ and claim to know Jesus fully with the appearances of ‘Christ divided’?

You are writing more or less the same in another thread, brother!

I’d like to quote what a poster wrote in said post:

Scriptures are clear on the hierarchy of the Church (See 1 Corinthians 12). Scriptures clearly tell us, through the early Church, to ‘obey our leaders and be subject to them’ (See Hebrews 13). With those examples we see an authoritative Church. How does a ‘body of believers’ align with a hierarchy in an authoritative Church?

Jesus told the people to ‘observe and do whatsoever they, that sat on the seat of Moses, said to them, do not as they do’. If people were to abandon a Church over the errors of sinful men, wouldn’t Christ have instructed the people differently?

I understand a Catholic would read those verses differently than some non-Catholics. My understanding of those verses in Corinthians is that they were given to explain the different roles of all of us in the Church. They are not necessarily setting up a hierarchy government, but more an explanation given by Paul as to the importance of each member of the Body of Christ no matter what their role. It was to build up and edify the Church and it’s members.

As for your second question, I do not believe that any true Christians abandoned the Church of Christ. I believe that we are all members of the Church of Christ.

Isn’t that the same, I’ve written you in this thread also?

You see, this is what I meant with the principles that define the doctrine of Baptist etc. churches. - You will hear the essentially the same from every reborn Christian.

 

[Esdra]

YIf we read the entire chapter we see that God set those in the Church. Paul even lists the offices of the early Church in the order of the hierarchy, ‘first’, ‘secondly’, ‘thirdly’, and ‘after that’.
Quote:
1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.

Actually, I would have never come to the idea to see a hierarchy (like the CC has it now) in the verse above.
Yes, he writes that there are different offices in the Church (which is the community of believers; - and you will naturally disagree here! ), all these ministries are given by the Holy Ghost, as I have written two posts ago.
Prodigal Son1:

1 Corinthians are letters of instructions to the Church. Some of those instructions include " Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment."

Aren’t also the (trinitarian) Churches, all of them, in agreement that Jesus is our savior and that he has died for us on the cross?
Is it a disagreement that you believe in honoring Mary, and I don’t?
What unites us is the believe in Christ! - So I would say, “No, there are no disagreements and schisms in the Christian Church”.
I am not speaking of the non-trinitarian Churches here, because they are cults and thus not Christians in my eyes.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Actually, I would have never come to the idea to see a hierarchy (like the CC has it now) in the verse above.
Yes, he writes that there are different offices in the Church (which is the community of believers; - and you will naturally disagree here! ), all these ministries are given by the Holy Ghost, as I have written two posts ago.

Aren’t also the (trinitarian) Churches, all of them, in agreement that Jesus is our savior and that he has died for us on the cross?
Is it a disagreement that you believe in honoring Mary, and I don’t?
What unites us is the believe in Christ! - So I would say, “No, there are no disagreements and schisms in the Christian Church”.
I am not speaking of the non-trinitarian Churches here, because they are cults and thus not Christians in my eyes.

Where does scriptures state ‘be perfect in mind and judgement on a few things?’ That’s a Protestant fallacy to say there are essentials that we agree on! Where does scriptures say there are basics/essentials, the rest is unimportant?

It’s so very Protestant to go straight to Mary in any argument with a Catholic.

What about baptisms, are they necessary, or not? Is someone once saved, always saved or not? Is tongues a sign of Holy Spirit, or a requirement for salvation? These are just a few disagreements, not only between some Protestants and Catholics, but among different denominations of Protestants themselves. And, you say there are no disagreements, or schisms.

If the Church is in error, how do you know the non-Trinitarians are wrong? Some non-Trinitarians believe that Jesus is our savior and that he has died for us on the cross. Where do you get authority to denounce everyone else as wrong? What passage in scriptures granted you such authority?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Actually, I would have never come to the idea to see a hierarchy (like the CC has it now) in the verse above.
Yes, he writes that there are different offices in the Church (which is the community of believers; - and you will naturally disagree here! ), all these ministries are given by the Holy Ghost, as I have written two posts ago.

Christ gave the first ministries to those He chose and appointed, confirming His right to do so with all authority granted to Him from the Fathers. Those men had full authority over His Church. You twist what they said to those they appointed to fit every single individual that has ever walked the earth, even to two or more who disagree with each other.

 

[Repentfulsinner]

I have to agree with you there.

I think if Catholics approach Protestants with the minimum understanding that the majority of Protestants are not -complete FOOLS, and that for the most part there are reasons for the beliefs, although there may be some error, then it will be easier to have conversations.

So true. People shouldn’t judge a whole group of people by the actions of a few, though it does seem that on both sides, the ignorant ones are the ones who yell the loudest.

 

[josephback]

What unites us is the believe in Christ! - So I would say, “No, there are no disagreements and schisms in the Christian Church”.
I am not speaking of the non-trinitarian Churches here, because they are cults and thus not Christians in my eyes.

Just a question: Who determines that the non-Trinitarian religions are cults and not Christian? I’m not saying I disagree with you, but who determines this? The word Trinity doesn’t even appear in the Bible, so why do trinitarian believers qualify but non-trinitarians are excluded? Who determines what the truth is and why? Food for thought.

 

[Esdra]

Just a question: Who determines that the non-Trinitarian religions are cults and not Christian? I’m not saying I disagree with you, but who determines this? The word Trinity doesn’t even appear in the Bible, so why do trinitarian believers qualify but non-trinitarians are excluded? Who determines what the truth is and why? Food for thought.

As far as I know, most trinitarian Churches accept the Nicene Creed and the Apostle’s Creed. At least Baptists do, according to their German website for Baptists in Germany. They even quote it broadly on their homepage. - So you could say they have some sort of what Catholics call Sacred Tradition at least in this respect.

It’s difficult, most what Catholics call ST is excluded by the born again Christians, but there are some things (which they naturally don’t call ST!) they accept.

 

[Esdra]

Where does scriptures state ‘be perfect in mind and judgement on a few things?’ That’s a Protestant fallacy to say there are essentials that we agree on! Where does scriptures say there are basics/essentials, the rest is unimportant?

It’s so very Protestant to go straight to Mary in any argument with a Catholic.

What about baptisms, are they necessary, or not? Is someone once saved, always saved or not? Is tongues a sign of Holy Spirit, or a requirement for salvation? These are just a few disagreements, not only between some Protestants and Catholics, but among different denominations of Protestants themselves. And, you say there are no disagreements, or schisms.

If the Church is in error, how do you know the non-Trinitarians are wrong? Some non-Trinitarians believe that Jesus is our savior and that he has died for us on the cross. Where do you get authority to denounce everyone else as wrong? What passage in scriptures granted you such authority?

Well, but there are principles set that says which Churches are “brothers in Christ” and which not - and besides the Bible, it’s mostly the Apostle’s or even Nicene Creed.
Here is the link about the Baptist principles: Click here.
Furthermore there is a kind of catechism called “The Baptist Confession of Faith” (The German Baptists have them on their homepage and I think that’s the same like the one I’ve posted above, but they called it differently, wordly translated from the German “The Justification of Faith”).

I also don’t ask you, “Why do have a catechism?” - See my point?

And I think every reborn Christian Church believes that.
This “catechism” is just as the Catechism of the RCC full of Scripture.

 

[Esdra]

Where does scriptures state ‘be perfect in mind and judgement on a few things?’ That’s a Protestant fallacy to say there are essentials that we agree on! Where does scriptures say there are basics/essentials, the rest is unimportant?

It’s so very Protestant to go straight to Mary in any argument with a Catholic.

I can tell you what I believe and think to be “the truth”:

What about baptisms, are they necessary, or not? Is someone once saved, always saved or not? Is tongues a sign of Holy Spirit, or a requirement for salvation? These are just a few disagreements, not only between some Protestants and Catholics, but among different denominations of Protestants themselves. And, you say there are no disagreements, or schisms.

1. Baptism is NOT necessary for salvation. We are saved by grace and not by a mere act.
2. We are saved through Jesus blood which he gave for us on the cross. Salvation is a gift, we can accept it, or deny it.
   I mean, I am not sure what would happen if you first accept it but then reject Christ (i.e.e become an atheist), if you are saved then as well or not, I can’t tell. I’ll ask our pastor…
3. Speaking in tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit. It is not an requirement for salvation. The Holy Spirit gives His gifts to everyone as He wants to (see 1 Cor Chapter 11+12, which we have talked about before)

If the Church is in error, how do you know the non-Trinitarians are wrong? Some non-Trinitarians believe that Jesus is our savior and that he has died for us on the cross. Where do you get authority to denounce everyone else as wrong? What passage in scriptures granted you such authority?

Please have a look here:

here

I don’t denounce anyone. There ARE principles, see our conversation before which determine which churches are “true” and which “wrong”.
I think in general that the terms true or wrong are no good using in our topic anyway! We are only small, mere humans. Jesus is the truth - and THIS unites us Christians, in this case even the non-trinitarian cults!

Actually, I don’t ask myself if I have authority or not. I most definitely don’t have any - only Jesus has authority as the High Priest and head of the Church. And His Word is the codex.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

1. Baptism is NOT necessary for salvation. We are saved by grace and not by a mere act.
2. We are saved through Jesus blood which he gave for us on the cross. Salvation is a gift, we can accept it, or deny it.
   I mean, I am not sure what would happen if you first accept it but then reject Christ (i.e.e become an atheist), if you are saved then as well or not, I can’t tell. I’ll ask our pastor…
3. Speaking in tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit. It is not an requirement for salvation. The Holy Spirit gives His gifts to everyone as He wants to (see 1 Cor Chapter 11+12, which we have talked about before)

I gave you examples of Protestant ‘disagreements’. You have given your beliefs. What makes your beliefs, according to your interpretation, correct over other Protestant Churches, according to their interpretation? What gives one Church ‘authority’ to declare another Church wrong on interpretations?

I came from a Protestant background. I know the disagreements exist as I listed.

I don’t denounce anyone. There ARE principles, see our conversation before which determine which churches are “true” and which “wrong”.
I think in general that the terms true or wrong are no good using in our topic anyway! We are only small, mere humans. Jesus is the truth - and THIS unites us Christians, in this case even the non-trinitarian cults!

Actually, I don’t ask myself if I have authority or not. I most definitely don’t have any - only Jesus has authority as the High Priest and head of the Church. And His Word is the codex.

You are using ‘authority’ to declare another faith as incorrect. Even though you attempt to show unity through ‘basics’, you classified the non-Trinitarians as ‘cults’. It appears to be contradictory.

I’m going to ask you again, where do scriptures state we are united on ‘essentials’, or ‘basics’, and the rest is not important?

 

[mackbrislawn]

There is a quote by Pope Benedict that says (READ BELOW). I was wondering what does ‘Church no, Jesus yes’ mean?

I’ve heard that many fundamentalist Protestants believe in a ‘just me and Jesus’ religion. I believe that without the Catholic Church the probability of my salvation wouldn’t be very high. So what is this so-called ‘just me and Jesus’ religion?

What the ones who say ‘Church no, Jesus yes’ don’t seem to realize is that without Church, there would be no Jesus.