Catholicity key to Church Unity

[Jude]

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

Fairly clear, at least to me, that Jesus is speaking here of Eucharist.

Again, as I said before, regarding Ray's view of the chalice, while many Protestants hold this 'memorial' view of Eucharist, it simply has no support in the teachings of the early Church.

Just one example, that of Justin Martyr (151 A.D.)
". . . . After the president has given thanks, and all the people have shouted their assent, those whom we call deacons give to each one present to partake of the Eucharistic bread and wine and water; and to those who are absent they carry away a portion. We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who has been washed in the washing [baptism] which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [2 Pet 3:21], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him [1 Cor 11: 23-26; Lk 22; 19] and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished is both the flesh and blood of the incarnated Jesus." (First Apology of Justin, chapter 128)

 

[Jude]

It seems to me that while most of us can find scriptural warrant for what we believe, not all can find warrant in the teachings of the early church. And isn't this important? After all, Jesus did say, "I will be with you, even unto the end of the age." If that promise is true, then by the Holy Spirit, the Lord continued to guide His Church after 33 A.D. And if what I believe about salvation, about church polity, about the Sacraments, etc., is not found in the teachings of the early church, then is what I believe correct? If what I believe is NOT FOUND in ANY of their writings, if what I believe only began to find expression in the 1500's, then is it possible that what I believe, no matter how sincerely held, wrong? I believe an honest re-examination (by all 'denominations')of sincerely-held beliefs is in order, especially if we are going to have the unity Jesus prayed for.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Fairly clear, at least to me, that Jesus is speaking here of Eucharist.

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 ...

It seems to me that while most of us can find scriptural warrant for what we believe, not all can find warrant in the teachings of the early church. And isn't this important?

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.

 

[John Gilmore]

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.

 

[Ray Berrian]

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.

 

[Eric B]

After all, Jesus did say, "I will be with you, even unto the end of the age." If that promise is true, then by the Holy Spirit, the Lord continued to guide His Church after 33 A.D. And if what I believe about salvation, about church polity, about the Sacraments, etc., is not found in the teachings of the early church, then is what I believe correct?

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.

 

[Jude]

Originally posted by John Gilmore:
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 don't disagree. But the above post about a 'faithful remnant' just doesn't hold-up to history. The -broader- church (I don't see a remnant anywhere, save the Arians and other heretics...why don't you cite sources here?) worked through the controversies with the heretics, fashioned doctrines and liturgies, and brought-together the NT canon.

 

[Jude]

Originally posted by Eric B:

Meanwhile, there were always small groups that challenged the Catholic notions of the sacraments, state church, and many other things.

Oh? Where? Who were they? Cite sources please.

 

[Kiffin]

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.

 

[Jude]

I have much-more in common with Orthodoxy than I do R Catholicism. If I ever left Anglicanism, I'd probably head east.

 

[Eric B]

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.

 

[Ray Berrian]

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]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
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]

As I posted before, I don't think it's necessary that there is 'one banner'.

"The first Christians when using the words ‘Ekklisía Katholikí (Ekklhsia Kaqolikh) never meant a world-wide Church. This word rather gave prominence to the orthodoxy of the Church, to the truth of the "Great Church," as contrasted with the spirit of sectarian separatism and particularism; it was the idea of integrity and purity that was expressed."

 

[Jude]

double posted...

 

[Jude]

Originally posted by Eric B:

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.

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. Doctrine did not.
If there is not an 'infallible' interpreter of Scripture and Doctrine, we have chaos...we have DENOMINATIONALISM. 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 Berrian]

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.

 

[Eric B]

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

"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.

 

[Ray Berrian]

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.

 

[Jude]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
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.

1Tim. 3.15 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.

 

[Ray Berrian]

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]