Catholicity key to Church Unity

So why didn't anyone take him up on it?? YOu have these committed followers and not one single one of them tried to take a bit of Jesus flesh or drink his blood. Isn't that strange to you? Isn't taht obvious proof they did not believe him to be speaking literally?? It should be ...

Not as important as inspired Scripture. You are taking a few writings of the early church instead of the clear teaching of Scripture. That is a bad way to do theology. God inspired Scripture and guaranteed it to be his truth. He did not do that for the church. We do need a serious reexamination of beliefs, and in so doing, we need to reject those that do not conform to the teaching of Scripture. Unity will come only when people abandon their false doctrine for the message of Scripture.

 

The writings of the fathers should be regarded as witnesses to how the pure doctrine of the apostles was preserved. However, scripture alone is the standard by which the writings of the fathers are to be judged.

 

I like to point sometimes to the church fathers, but they were not always right in their theology.

Even in the apostles time there were Christians who had things confused, as in II Timothy 2:17-20. These two men believed that the resurrection was already in the past. This was a serious error, just like the Preterists on the other topic. These two men were mistaken only in this area, while Preterists are totally off the scope theologically speaking.

The Apostle Paul's answer was that these men were saved, but strayed from orthodox theology. Hymenaeus and Philetus were vessel's of 'earthen ware' . . . . {and had by their testimony become men of} 'dishonor,' to Christ and His holy Gospel.

Anyway back to the main point. I believe God speaking through John uses these powerful words of 'body and blood', to remind us of the unthinkable cost that Jesus paid to redeem us to eternal life. There is nothing magical in the wine and bread, but it does serve as a beautiful reminder ---'a remembrance of Jesus.' [I Corinthians 11:25d,e,f and g]

Because of the fact that some Christians do not receive the cup and bread worthily, is an indication that receiving the elements of bread and wine, is not always a positive experience. In some cases, here in this passage the Lord disciplined/chastised His people [I Cor. 11:30] because they did not confess their sins before receiving the Eucharist. Some who received Communion unworthily, the Lord took them home to Heaven because of the seriousness of their sin or sins. Just receiving the Holy Communion did not necessarily imply another spiritual cleansing for the new week ahead of them.

Also, there is no saving merit in Communion to sinners who might receive at this Table of the Lord. There is no miraculous or magical powers in this bread and wine that is said to be turned into the actual body and blood of the Lord.

 

And dozens of NT scriptures also warn of the departure from the truth that was beginning even as they wrote. Meanwhile, there were always small groups that challenged the Catholic notions of the sacraments, state church, and many other things. Of course, they were the "heretics", right; as the size of the "orthodox" group apparently determined the truth, and who was preserving it. But actually, Jesus did speak of the truth being the "narrow' way, rather then the broad.

 

I think John 6:51 can only be applied to the Eucharist in a secondary sense. I am not a bare memorialist and hold to Calvin and the 39 articles view that we partake of Christ in the spiritual sense. I think it is bad exposition to think this is specifically referring to the Eucharist.


There were certaintly many who challenged Rome's view before the Reformation who were not heretics. Roman Catholicism itself was not the Church of the Church Fathers. We need to be careful to distingish between Catholics and Roman Catholic since at Nicea, the Church of Alexandria seems to be the Church leading the charge against Arians and was as promininent or more prominent than the Roman church at the time.

Some Pre Reformation groups that were orthodox were....The Waldenses, Lollards, Wycliffe, Hus, the Hussites. The Eastern Orthodox which split in 1054 because of Rome's tyrannical move to force them to submit to papal authority, while not Protestant does not agree with Rome's view of transubstatiation, purgatory, indulgences.

 

Kiffin explained it well. I would also add right before and during the Reformation, the Anabaptists (most were orthodox). I was not thinking of a "faithful remnant" in the sense of the "Baptist view of history" —or the JW's, Church of Christ, sabbathkeeping Church of God, etc.; that tries to link all the small groups into a competing "apostolic sucession" against the large church.
We cannot interpret the Word of God by history (i.e. by the size and duration of the large powerful church, as if, once again, that is what determined truth). While the churches would shift in doctrine and practice, as the NT prophesied, the Word of God remained the same, however men decided to reinterpret, or add to it.

 

Church unity does not depend on man made manipulation under one banner. Church unity comes from the upper view down to us, as to who the Lord God includes and grafts into His one true church. This catholicity comes about by all who receive Christ as Savior. [John 1:12]
Human beings determine their eternal destiny. [John 3:16]

 

Jude,

You said, 'But the history of the Church, the very-role of the church is to interpret the
Scriptures. The Church gave us the NT Canon. Practice, if you want to use
that word, did vary.

Ray is saying, 'I do agree with you at least up to this point.'

You said, 'Doctrine did not.'

Ray is saying, 'Even before the apostles died and while the church fathers were very young, there were changes in doctrine. Check: II Timothy 2:17. These two men were Christians. This makes your theory above wrong.

You said, 'If there is not an 'infallible' interpreter of Scripture and Doctrine, we have
chaos...we have DENOMINATIONALISM.'

Ray is saying, 'There is a variety of doctrine but this is of no real concern to us, except to try to convince people of the true doctrines. Catholicism is among the chief offenders in their attempt to correctly interpret the Scripture. Your church has little to no eschatological system of end times events. I believe you believe and are told that the next event is the Second Coming of Christ and simply then the final judgment of both sinners and saints at the same time. Beyond this there is a 'black hole.'

You said, ' If the churches did 'shift' in doctrine, what does this do to the promise of Jesus, "I will be with you always, even unto the end of the age"?'

Ray is saying, 'Jesus promise to all Christians still stands, in spite of our varying doctrinal ideas.'

The only criterion that I see in Scripture to qualify a sinner to becoming a Christian is found in I John 4:2. God says, 'Hereby know ye the Spirit of God; every spirit who confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God,' and everyone who receives Jesus into their life will be saved. [John 1:12 & John 3:16]

In John 17 it is Jesus who prays for only the above kinds of persons; the rest will be lost. Jesus unites with the Father and the Spirit of God, all who receive His Son. This was His focus rather than a one world Christian church and doctrinal purity.

 

"infallible interpreter"? How about the HOLY SPIRIT who inspired them in the first place? Once again, the problem arose because of as the example Ray gave, plus the numerous scriptures showing that people would come into the Church devoid of the Spirit, and begin leading people the wrong way. This is what began to lead to denominationalism. Then one group gaied power and declared itself "infallible", but much had changed already.

 

The Apostle Paul warned about the blending of philosophy and of soon coming traditions of men. [Colossians 2:8]

St. Augustine blended the philosophy of Aristotle and Socrates and came up with a autocratic God who willfully damns Who He desires and saves Who He wants without any thought as to whether they were worthy or not worthy. To him it did not matter, and John Calvin merely put Augustine's ideas into his Institutes of the Christian Religion.

None of us are worthy of His so great salvation and we are all depraved, [Romans 3:23] but He does receive all who come to Him by faith. [Romans 5:1]

Only the Holy Spirit is our Teacher. [John 14:26 & I John 2:27] Obviously, the Apostle John had great confidence in the Spirit of the Lord to teach His people truth.

 

The church is the pillar and ground of Christian truth only when it stays with and interprets the Word of God; when the church adds on new theology, as in the passing popes, the church becomes compromised. The Apostle Paul warned of men in the future who would do this. Some of the popes were the worst offenders. [Colossians 2:8]