Universal Church

[tblaine74]

Hi, I have put together something of an outline, or apology, for the universal church. I am hoping for some serious criticism. I honestly don't want to believe it if it is not right. By all means, tear it apart. Here goes:


Foundation of the Church

Matthew 16:18 (New International Version) [Post - A.D. 70]

…on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it

Matthew 28:19 (New International Version) [Post - A.D. 70]

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit


Nature of the Church

John 14:6 (New International Version) [Post - A.D. 85]

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me

Colossians 1:24 (New International Version) [A.D. 60]

Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.

1 Timothy 3:15 (New International Version) [A.D. 63-65]

if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth

Matthew 12:25 (New International Version) [Post - A.D. 70]

Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.

1 Corinthians 1:10 (New International Version) [A.D. 55]

I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.

1 Corinthians 1:13 (New International Version) [A.D. 55]

Is Christ divided?

Jude 1:19 (New International Version) [A.D. 65-80]

These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.


Founded to Stand; Unity

Acts 15:22 (New International Version) [Post - A.D. 70]

The Council's Letter to Gentile Believers

Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them [from Jerusalem] to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers.

1 Corinthians 16:1-3 (New International Version) [A.D. 55]

Now about the collection for God's people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem

The Epistle of St. Ignatus to the Romans [A.D. 105]

1:1 Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her that hath found mercy in the bountifulness of the Father Most High and of Jesus Christ His only Son;
1:2 to the church that is beloved and enlightened through the will of Him who willed all things that are, by faith and love towards Jesus Christ our God;
1:3 even unto her that hath the presidency in the country of the region of the Romans, being worthy of God,
1:4 worthy of honour, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy in purity, and having the presidency of love, walking in the law of Christ and bearing the Father's name;

Irenaeus

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paulâ€â€that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies, 3:3:2 [A.D.189]).


Summary Outline and Logical Deduction

Implicit Syllogistic Logic

Christ is the truth, and
The Church is the body of Christ, therefore
The Church is the body (pillar and foundation) of truth.

Christ is not divided, and
The Church is the body of Christ, therefore
The Church cannot be divided.

Empirical Evidence of the Church

The Apostles founded Churches, as evidenced by Paul’s letters to those churches.

The churches were a Church in their efforts to agree, to be of one mind, and to be undivided, as evidenced by the themes of the writings of the times, including those canonized in the New Testament.

The method for reconciling unity was the same as for any appeal to reconciliation, which is an appeal to some authority. The authority, as evinced by the writings of the times, was the church at Jerusalem for its apostolic presence, which at the time was the presence of the apostles themselves. After the time of the apostles, the authority, as evinced by the writings of the times, was the church at Rome for its apostolic tradition, established by Peter and Paul. As there remains no church possessing apostolic tradition superior to the church at Rome, this church remains the authority for maintaining unity, or universality amongst the faithful.

 

[A-Christian]

Looks like no takers tblain74.
Too Catholic I guess ;-)

 

[stovebolts]

tblain74

That was a good post. However, if Rome hadn't abused it's authority, Luther would have never protested.

Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.

Likewise, if men hadn't argued over who was in authority, (1054), the church may have looked a bit different when Luther came on scene. Rome is a household, not a kingdom as witnessed by it's falling apart (divisions)

As there remains no church possessing apostolic tradition superior to the church at Rome, this church remains the authority for maintaining unity, or universality amongst the faithful.

What about the Coptics in Egypt? Seems they've been pretty quiet and have avoided all this arguing from the time Mark established that church...

In closing, I recall Jesus telling a story about when one is invited to a banquet, one should sit at the lower end of the table. If the owner of the house calls calls you to a better seat, then you are honored, if not.. well then...

 

[A-Christian]

However, if Rome hadn't abused it's authority, Luther would have never protested.

Agreed

 

[stovebolts]

However, if Rome hadn't abused it's authority, Luther would have never protested.

Agreed

Hello friend!
I think that's one of the things that I really like about Vatican II, it seems to me that it's really working toward reconciliation. John Paul was an excellent example.

 

[Imagican]

Stove,

What's been happening, my brother. Long time no 'argue with', (he he he just jokin'). Good to see some of the 'old faces' here.

Just wondering; Universal Church? Is this in reference to UR? For IF so, I believe that this is a subject that is NOT allowed on the Forum. I believe that it's BEST for ALL forms of Christianity to be discussed so that those that do NOT stand up can be forced to LAY DOWN so far as Scripture is concerned. But for some reason, before I got here, UR was deemed NOT EVEN discussable and forbidden.

So, beware of the consequences of it's discussion here.

MEC

 

[stovebolts]

Hi Mike, good to see you back again too!
BTW, I saw Mutz around, but havn't had a chance to give him a shout eitehr.

As far as arguing, we wern't arguing in our emails back and forth were we? (PM me the response lol) I know we had some spats in the past about the trinity, but I beleive that God has used those instances to show me a better way, His way. In other words, "God aint done with me yet"

In response to your misunderstanding that this thread has anythign to do with UR, this might clear things up a bit.

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=30340

I think the misconception might be the word 'Catholic" and how it's being used.

The word catholic simply means universal. That is to say that salvation is open to all, not just the Jews as was the ideology in the day of Christ until the first century church was formed, to which they called themselves the 'Catholic' Church.

Now, there are different types of "Catholic" churches, and that's where I believe your confusion comes in. Note the preface to word 'Catholic" in each church. There is the Orthodox Catholic church, Roman Catholic Church, Milkite Catholic and Antiochian Catholic church just to name a few. (and there are many)

Now, I havn't read the Wiki article, but it may help you to better understand the word 'Catholic'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic

Back to your original thought in regard to the Pope, by the broad definition of the very word catholic, you are indeed a part of the Catholic Church. I'm sure that I've got your hair raised now, but please, hear me out.

Please note; I did not say that you were a part of the Roman catholic church. What I said is that you are a part of the universal (catholic) Church of Christ. That is to say that you are a part of the body of Christ.

Where the Roman catholic church takes a stand, is in saying that the fullness of Christ can only be found within the Roman catholic church and to this, you may disagree as do all who label themselves protestant or any other label of christianity including the Greek Orthodox church. Now, according to Vatican 2, those outside of the Roman Catholic church can still belong to the Catholic Church and thus, can be saved and yes, this even extends to the Protestants.

Does that make sense to you?

BTW, I would be considered a protestant from the view point of the Roman catholic church.

Hope that clears things up a bit for you.

Peace.

 

[Vic C.]

No MEC, not UR, but UC, as in universal, worldwide or "catholic" church. Catholic can mean either universal or worldwide.

We all know UR is frowned upon here. 8-)

 

[tblaine74]

Thanks for the posts. Just for clarity, the term universal could be interchanged with catholic in my original post. I chose universal in hopes that readers would focus on the logic rather than a name - so far so good.

The statement was made that Luther would not have protested if Rome had not abused its authority. I don’t know enough to dispute that. What appears most relevant, in the affirmative, is what an abuse of authority means in relation to that authority. How does it affect that authority? If the authority was the result of apostolic tradition, then how can it be removed except by a superior apostolic tradition? It would seem that the only way to supplant Rome’s authority would be to show that its apostolic tradition died at some point. Further, I think the way to do that would be to show that its structure and teachings at some point contradicted its apostolic tradition. This is what I am interested in knowing more about. I am not concerned about all the horrific Catholics and their horrific acts, as I do not believe that the mere fact that a child disobeys his father is proof that he is not his father’s son (paraphrasing William Buckley).

Thanks again

 

[Imagican]

Thanks guys. Never heard of it being refered to as 'universal'. See, even an idiot like me CAN learn something new, (he he he).

MEC

 

[A-Christian]

That term goes all the way back to the time of the Apostles.

 

[stovebolts]

Hi tblaine74,

I only used Luther as an example of when said authority is abused or boasted of.

Now, have you ever heard of the Coptics? I believe that St. Mark, St. Paul's fellow worker along with Barnabas established the church in Egypt, yet they are a very quiet, peaceful church for the most part, even refusing to give argument to either the Greek Orthodox or the Roman Catholic.

What makes Rome any better given her track record?

 

[tblaine74]

StoveBolts,
Thanks for the post. I have heard of the Copts, and the church at Alexandria, which both the East and West traditions hold to have been founded by St. Mark. I am not aware of any writings that demonstrate that the Church recognized the church at Alexandria as the authority. I am aware of a discourse between Dionysius of Rome and Dionysius of Alexandria around the year A.D. 260, after the latter’s teachings were reported to Rome as heretical.

 

[A-Christian]

St. Mark did bring Christianity to that area but the Coptic Catholics, hundreds of years later, eventually turned into schismatics at he least and heritics at the most. The Vatican has tried to heal the relationship.

 

[mutzrein]

The foundation of THE Church?

Jesus!

Ah . . . but of course there are other 'churches' who have built on other foundations.

 

[Imagican]

That term goes all the way back to the time of the Apostles.

Funny,

I have read the NT and never encountered this word. So what apostles offered it? This sounds like it must be some 'more' Catholic 'traditional stuff'. You know, that stuff that only they can prove to themselves?

MEC

 

[A-Christian]

Funny,

I have read the NT and never encountered this word. So what apostles offered it? This sounds like it must be some 'more' Catholic 'traditional stuff'. You know, that stuff that only they can prove to themselves?

To begin with, I never said that the word catholic was in the NT. I said the term dates back to the time of the Apostles. Take for instance the following quote from the third bishop of Antioch. Keep in mind that Ignatius actually hung around the Apostle John for 40 years. Peter himself appointed Ignatius to the See of antioch.


Ignatius of Antioch

"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2.

 

[Imagican]

Ah,

I see. More Catholic rhetoric that really goes to 'prove' little other than a 'belief' system 'created by men'. I thought you meant THE apostles when you made your statement. Pardon me for my ignorance.

For a people that have created the illusion that they have done nothing other than 'keep up the faith and tradition' of the original apostles, I guess what you offered probably 'seems' like an accurate statement.

But 'A', what if those that have 'taught' this have simply altered the 'true' history of the 'creation' of this and in reality it is NOTHING more than a fabricated 'story'? For we KNOW what was offered by the apostles themselves and little more than this other than written words 'of others', that may or may NOT have any bearing on 'the truth'.

Wouldn't it be MUCH more prudent to simply follow that offered by those that we KNOW were led by Christ and The Spirit than by men that simply 'stated' that they too were being led by 'the same'?

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

But 'A', what if those that have 'taught' this have simply altered the 'true' history of the 'creation' of this and in reality it is NOTHING more than a fabricated 'story'? For we KNOW what was offered by the apostles themselves and little more than this other than written words 'of others', that may or may NOT have any bearing on 'the truth'.

Then you will never know if the Bible is even the Word of God. That idea is based on a tradition passed down by the Catholic Church itself. Think about it and be careful on biting the hand that feeds you... In the end, Imagican, we must trust men (or not) on historical events that happened 2000 years ago.

HOW do you "KNOW" who was led by Christ and who wasn't? Merely because they were Catholic is supposed to be your guideline for rejecting their word???

Regards

 

[A-Christian]

Mec,

Your logic is flawed my brother. You put all your trust into a book that was assembled by the Catholic Church, a book that in no form or manner states that it is the only source for those things pertaining to Christianity, and you reject the rest. So you simply do not believe the early writings of Catholics, which is the historical account of the Church setup by Christ, yet you trust that the Catholics accurately choose and assembled your New Testament. The problem, I feel is that you are misinformed on whole subject of Catholicism and do not know history. Now please don't try to convince us that you do know your history because you stated earlier that you didn’t know that catholic meant universal. I understand where you are coming from because I too came from the place you are now. Do you really think that the gates of hell prevailed against the church after the death of the last apostle, only to be beat back 1500 years later by Luther?

Peace

P.S.
Once I stopped looking at the Catholic Church through the blinders of misinformation learned from my protestant background and studied history, the truth that you seek became clear.