The Last Church That You Would Agree With Until Restoration

[VirginShallConceive]

I just thought of this, and it seemed that it would be an interesting thread topic.

Let's say that you are Lutheran. You agree with the teachings of Martin Luther, and would attend any worship service that Martin Luther approved of.

So, you would obviously attend the church that you attend now, and possibly find a church that you would agree with if you went back in time all the way to the days of Martin Luther.

But, even though Martin Luther broke away from the Roman Catholic church sometime during the early 16th century, you possibly wouldn't agree with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church of the 3rd-15th centuries either.

So, what I'm trying to get out of you is what this hypothetical Lutheran person of today might say:

"If I could travel freely through time, I could find a church that I could attend in wholehearted agreement from 30 A.D. until around 150 A.D., and then there is a huge gap, and then I could resume attending from around 1517 A.D. all the way through the present."


With so many denominations, and the fact that we are all unique individuals, I'm sure the answers would vary, but that's what makes this exercise even more interesting.

 

[Claudya]

Denominations are overrated. They only seperate us from each other. God has only one church.

That being said, I would probably attend churches rather independent of my agreement with their teaching (unless they teach blatantly false stuff). I'd choose my church by wether I like the people and feel like they are sisters and brothers to each other, and by how serious they are in their walk with Christ, whether they reach out to non believers or practically take care of the needs of people both inside and outside of the church.

If I could freely travel through space and time and choose a church to attend I would very much love to hear Martin Luther himself preach (I actually AM lutheran. ). He had a very, uhm, earthy sense of humour and he was very gifted with language. I bet his sermons were both wise and entertaining.

Other than that I'd love to travel through time and/or space to attend an underground church of christians living in persecution for their faith, like in the ancient rome, or in our modern world in countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran or Somalia. I wouldn't care for what denomination they have. Christians that remain true to Christ despite persecution and violence are faith role models and heros beyond any teaching or doctrine. It would be the greatest honour to belong to their church and learn from them.

 

[Webb]

Jesus said He would build His church, Matt.16:18. Would it be fair to say therefore that His church can be identified in the NT?

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Denominations are overrated. They only seperate us from each other. God has only one church.

That being said, I would probably attend churches rather independent of my agreement with their teaching (unless they teach blatantly false stuff). I'd choose my church by wether I like the people and feel like they are sisters and brothers to each other, and by how serious they are in their walk with Christ, whether they reach out to non believers or practically take care of the needs of people both inside and outside of the church.

I agree.

My beliefs have evolved throughout my life, but I still attend the same church.

I think the more interesting answers for me might come from individuals who adhere strictly to their church's "Statement of Faith" or what not.

If I could freely travel through space and time and choose a church to attend I would very much love to hear Martin Luther himself preach (I actually AM lutheran. ). He had a very, uhm, earthy sense of humour and he was very gifted with language. I bet his sermons were both wise and entertaining.

Other than that I'd love to travel through time and/or space to attend an underground church of christians living in persecution for their faith, like in the ancient rome, or in our modern world in countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran or Somalia. I wouldn't care for what denomination they have. Christians that remain true to Christ despite persecution and violence are faith role models and heros beyond any teaching or doctrine. It would be the greatest honour to belong to their church and learn from them.

Thank you for this portion in which you play "make believe" with me, because this is the type of answer I am looking for.

Like, a Lutheran, such as yourself, would agree with you and would agree that from Luther on, there was a church for them.

But, they would also agree that they would love to attend a gathering where Jesus Christ was the teacher, and they would obviously wholeheartedly agree with everything He taught.

They might also agree with the Apostles and perhaps their direct students.

They might also agree with Paul and perhaps his direct students.

But, there might come a point somewhere in there where they can't find an appropriate church until Martin Luther hits the scene.

I find it interesting, and thank you for participating.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Jesus said He would build His church, Matt.16:18. Would it be fair to say therefore that His church can be identified in the NT?

Hi, Webb.

Yes, I would say that is a fair assessment.

But, for instance, the Roman Catholic Church claims that Peter is the first pope. If this is true, people from one of the many other denominations of today could look back in time and say that at least up until and during the life of Peter, they agree with the Roman Catholic Church. Or, they might say that the Roman Catholic Church is trying to doctor-up history to falsely maintain its "legitimacy".

Nevertheless, your contribution to the thread is an excellent marker for us to reference in our search for "During which periods in history has a church existed that I would agree with?".

 

[reba]

I dont believe denominations divide as much as some think. To me denominations are like back yard fences that make for better neighbours.

I do believe the Church ( His Church which is not A denomination) has continued from the beginning...and will continue until He returns.. Hopefully i/we have grown as a group and individuals from the 'milk' to the 'meat'

 

[VirginShallConceive]

To me denominations are like back yard fences that make for better neighbours.

I've never heard that one before, but I like it.

I do believe the Church ( His Church which is not A denomination) has continued from the beginning...and will continue until He returns.. Hopefully i/we have grown as a group and individuals from the 'milk' to the 'meat'

When it all comes down to it, yes, I agree. We all should.

But, just for fun, I still like to look back in history and see what we can find.

 

[Webb]

Jesus said He would build His church, Matt.16:18. Would it be fair to say therefore that His church can be identified in the NT?

Hi, Webb.

Yes, I would say that is a fair assessment.

But, for instance, the Roman Catholic Church claims that Peter is the first pope. If this is true, people from one of the many other denominations of today could look back in time and say that at least up until and during the life of Peter, they agree with the Roman Catholic Church. Or, they might say that the Roman Catholic Church is trying to doctor-up history to falsely maintain its "legitimacy".

Nevertheless, your contribution to the thread is an excellent marker for us to reference in our search for "During which periods in history has a church existed that I would agree with?".

Yes the Catholic church claims Peter to be the first pope, and popes are not to be married, yet poor old Peter not only had a wife but he had a mother-in-law as well. This should eliminate something from being a mark of identity of the church in the Bible.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Jesus said He would build His church, Matt.16:18. Would it be fair to say therefore that His church can be identified in the NT?

Hi, Webb.

Yes, I would say that is a fair assessment.

But, for instance, the Roman Catholic Church claims that Peter is the first pope. If this is true, people from one of the many other denominations of today could look back in time and say that at least up until and during the life of Peter, they agree with the Roman Catholic Church. Or, they might say that the Roman Catholic Church is trying to doctor-up history to falsely maintain its "legitimacy".

Nevertheless, your contribution to the thread is an excellent marker for us to reference in our search for "During which periods in history has a church existed that I would agree with?".

Yes the Catholic church claims Peter to be the first pope, and popes are not to be married, yet poor old Peter not only had a wife but he had a mother-in-law as well. This should eliminate something from being a mark of identity of the church in the Bible.

Excellent point, Webb.

 

[Sinthesis]

I bet I would find groups of believers I disagreed with on non-essentials all throughout the history of Christianity, but even so, they are still the people I would feel most at home with when compared to non-believers. What kind of Christian living in Iran would choose to look down their nose at other Iranian Christians if they belonged to a different denomination?

 

[Joe Domingo]

That Church would be the one I start.

 

[Deborah13]

to attend an underground church of christians

Claudya stole my thunder.

 

[Elijah674]

I believe that Rev. 12:17 has the last truth for this life. (and all else) It says...

[17] And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the (First) commandments of God, and have the (the second Adams) testimony of Jesus Christ.

So of these the closest that I can detect are the Matt. 25 Virgins. And of these ones, five ran out of oil. Christ stated that if you LOVE ME, keep my commandments. (so just having the truth is not enough)

Christ also said...
Matt. 23
[1] Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
[2] Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
[3] All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

So the fatal choice was their undoing. (not the teachings) See Isa. 5 & verse 3!
Isa.5

[1] Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill:
[2] And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.

[3] And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, [[betwixt me and my vineyard.]]
[4] What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?

But never think that they were all lost!

--Elijah

 

[dadof10]

I dont believe denominations divide as much as some think. To me denominations are like back yard fences that make for better neighbours.

There were no "denominations" in the early Church. As in Acts 15, when there was a dispute within the Church, it was taken to the "apostles and elders", they discussed, prayed and the Holy Spirit gave them the resolution, which was then handed on to the WHOLE Church for observance.

If I could go back, I would simply find the Christians. They were unified by obedience to the authority set up by Jesus.

 

[reba]

When reading the NT i dont see much different in the folks then as today... Names and words change over years take on different meanings...

 

[dadof10]

When reading the NT i dont see much different in the folks then as today... Names and words change over years take on different meanings...

I don't see much difference either. Human nature is what it is. That's not the point, though.

Since we are imagining here, let's take a look at Acts 15 and imagine this scenario:

Paul goes beck to Antioch with the decision reached by the council of Jerusalem. He tells the "Judaizers" (the ones not at the council) about the decision, and tells them they must "observe" these decisions. Suppose they said; "We have been searching Scripture, and have come to the conclusion that the council was wrong. Scripture clearly says circumcision is necessary for salvation. We have been praying for guidance, and it's clear that this is from the Holy Spirit. Therefore, we will be breaking off from your Church and starting our own with salvation by the law and circumcision as the cornerstone. We don't believe that the Holy Spirit guided the council's decision, in fact, it might have been Satan guiding it because we don't find your views in Scripture."

What do you think Paul would have said to these people?

 

[reba]

Not taking the bait Dad

 

[Deborah13]

What do you think Paul would have said to these people?

Well I'm kind of in the mood to be a fish this morning, so I'm take the bait.

I would never presume to know what Paul would have said, he would be more gracious than I, I'm sure.

I would however say, "Obviously, you are Jobish people who claim "your own right hand can save you"[quote from Job]. So you might as well go back to the temple, seeing you don't have faith that the blood of Jesus was sufficient to save you."

What do you think he would have said? Or better yet, what would you have said?

 

[dadof10]

Not taking the bait Dad

LOL...OK. It really wasn't meant to be a trick question.

 

[dadof10]

What do you think Paul would have said to these people?

Well I'm kind of in the mood to be a fish this morning, so I'm take the bait.

I would never presume to know what Paul would have said, he would be more gracious than I, I'm sure.

I don't think he would have been gracious at all. He didn't seem like the kind of person who was wishy-washy when it came to doctrine.

I would however say, "Obviously, you are Jobish people who claim "your own right hand can save you"[quote from Job]. So you might as well go back to the temple, seeing you don't have faith that the blood of Jesus was sufficient to save you."

I think that's pretty accurate as to what Paul would say also.

"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1)

What do you think he would have said? Or better yet, what would you have said?

Well, he called the Judaizers "accursed", which is pretty strong language. I guess I would say the same sort of thing, the same sort of thing you said above. I would also add a line or two about authority...

When I look at Acts 15, I see the Biblical way the Church is supposed to function. I'm pretty sure Paul expected submission to the council's decision, after all, he is the one who took the "question" to the council in the first place.

Since we are "what ifing", why didn't Paul simply handle this dissension in Antioch? Why didn't he simply search the Scriptures and make a decision? Why did he feel the need to take it to Jerusalem?