What is the Church?

[ErikJohnson]

Spin-off of a spin-off (“The Protestant Reformation…”)—

On that thread, an idea was put forward that “the true Church” was the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12, 18-20, 27-28, Colossians 1:18, Ephesians 1:22-23, 5:25). And that God’s Church is made up of all believers, regardless of denomination (or non-denomination).

An LDS poster dismissed the idea as a “contrived philosophy” and “quaint.”

I’m interested in exploring the idea further, in part motivated by the following article that seeks to define “the Church”—

Seattle Pastor Offers Clarity to 'Church'| Christianpost.com

Is there anything wrong with Pastor Mark Driscoll's definition? How would LDS prefer to see it defined?

--Erik

[prisonchaplain]

I like your definition, of course. But...just what does it mean to say, "all believers?" Believers in Jesus? Believers in our Nicene Creed understanding of Jesus? Believers in the Apostles' Creed? If all who believe in Jesus enter in, does that include subordinationists, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses? What of those who say Jesus alone is God, and that Father and Holy Spirit are just modes Jesus sometimes shows up as (i.e. United Pentecostal Church -- aka 'Jesus Only')?

Then there's the whole matter of the demons believing and being in fear and trembling? So, what level of obedience might we need to see in order to say, "Yeah..s/he really believes with a saving faith?"

IMHO (well...not really so humble), I believe your original answer is basically right, but that the true believer does have some obligation to obey Jesus commands, and to study Scripture so as to better understand the one s/he claims allegiance to.

[ErikJohnson]

My apology for the ambiguity. By "believers" I mean all those who believe as Thomas witnessed of Jesus: "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28). I do not think it necessary for someone to understand the nuances and implications of the early Christian creeds to be believers in the Lord. And frankly I don't understand them all myself (as AnthonyB made pretty clear on the previous thread). As for United Pentecostals, what I've heard of their views is disconcerting--but I'm not prepared to say they aren't part of the Body of Christ.

But I fully agree a believer is obligated to obey Christ's commands.

Perhaps we can discuss what is meant by God's Church without turning the thread into another debate over the Trinity.

Perhaps, or perhaps not…

;0)

--Erik

[dazed-and-confused]

Perhaps we can discuss what is meant by God's Church without turning the thread into another debate over the Trinity.

Perhaps, or perhaps not…

;0)

--Erik

i hope so too.......and yes....like you.....i'm not prepared to claim that ANY other christian is not part of the Body of Christ.....however, for me, i'm lds

[prisonchaplain]

Some of the folks here are probably aware that some of the Christian apologetics sites that are highly critical of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and of Jehovah's Witnesses, and of Oneness Pentecostals, have indeed made the Trinity "a line in the sand," demarking those who are in and those who are not. I'm willing to agree, for this thread, that apprehension of the doctrine is not a prerequisite of being part of the Church. So, indeed, what is?

What of, for example, the roughly 60% of LDS or are inactive? Same question for the many "traditional Christians," who are absent from the assembly. And, are there some church groups we would say do not qualify, and on what basis? Nearly everyone on this board can agree that there has been some apostasy in the church. How much is permissable?

Erik, your post is very clear. My questions come from my grappling with this very issue. How is it that an LDS inmate can spend three months in my chapel services and "feel the spirit," but a member of my own denomination quits coming because I would not put him on the Jewish diet as a favor to a brother? Likewise, what do I make of Christian inmates who have no problem attending Buddhist meditation (hey, Christians meditate too--I just ignore the Buddha statue)?

You ask a most appropriate question. So far, I'm not comfortable with any of the answers I've encountered:

1. Anything goes, so long as you say the sinner's prayer

2. It's my (or my group's or my pastor's) way or the highway

3. Follow our rules and use the King James Version

4. True Christians don't speak in tongues

5. No denominations--only independents allowed

6. There is one true church--come join us (and yes, more than one groups claims this)

7. Justification by faith alone, and belief in the Holy Trinity will get you in

The above are but a few examples. I harken back to mostly agreeing with the OP. True believers in the true Jesus will be truly saved and grafted into the true Church. We get in trouble if we try to narrow the definition, or put too many hard and fast explanations on what makes a true believer. Ultimately, only God knows. We get some hints in the Bible, but LDS are right when they say that the fruit of lives is probably as important as passage of a doctrine test.

[AnthonyB]

This is a big question...especially for someone from my faith tradition. We set out to re-unify the church around the NT alone, drop the creeds and traditons then go back to the bible and everyone could be one church. Of course the question is who gets to decide what the bible means. We set out membership of the church as one confession "Jesus is Lord" and one act "baptism".

I truly believe that Jesus and the NT clearly intends their to be one body that is clearly identified as one church. Clearly the christian church is not that and that IMHO is clearly a sin. However their are significant difference between churches, which many hold as essential doctrines. It would be equally as sinfully to demand someone gives up what they believe is crucial doctrine. I think we all have to prayerfully and carefully consider what really is essential doctrine and practice for christians.

However the question that I have is what would one church be like, how would we form it and just what would it mean to local congregations? IMHO it has to be something that God brings about and not merely an initiative of men. What form it takes and how it forms may well surprise us all.

I do think we have to distinguish between people who attend churches that have the essentials of the message and practice right, and those that have some of the gospel but have it mingled with wrong teaching and practice. Some will saved with the help of thier church and some savced almost despite their church.

I know something that would likely lead to the creation of one church again. Severe persecution of all christians. If we are all facing death for our faith in Jesus, at that point we may care somewhat less for finer points of doctrinal difference and reach out in the common bond of our faith in Jesus.

Edited June 6, 2009 by AnthonyB

[a-train]

To understand the Mormon position, one must first be aquainted with the LDS doctrine of the pre-mortal existance of mankind. To be short, Mormons believe that every human being who has ever lived or who ever will live on this earth existed in spirit form in the presence of God before coming to earth. A war took place (not a physical one obviously) between two factions of those spirits who would come to this earth (us). One faction supported the Firstborn of all those spirits in His advocacy of the plan of the Father in conducting and organizing the affairs of this earth. The other faction supported the devil in a rebellion against God in those affairs, specifically on the subject of agency and the political question of who would officiate as an agent for the affairs of man. The Devil, of course, sought for his own appointment as ruler.

The faction or group which supported the Firstborn, the "Church of the Firstborn", was there established. (See Hebrews 12:23). The organization of the Church of the Firstborn was there introduced and stands to this day. In fact, the Twelve Disciples of the New Testament time stood as such in the pre-mortal world and do so today.

None of those who rebelled and who were not numbered with the Church of the Firstborn in the premortal world have ever or will ever be born on this earth. Thus, every human being you've ever known or will ever know on this earth is a member of that Church.

This said, coming to earth from the pre-mortal realm, each of us comes under what we call the "viel". By this we mean that we cannot remember the pre-mortal realm or our activities there. Here again we must learn to choose God rather than alternatives. God therefore has established an earthly Church in addition to the Church of the Firstborn in heaven.

This earthly Church is the kingdom of God on earth. It is constituted only of those who have entered by baptism by those in authority. Only those baptized by recognized agents of God's kingdom actually enter the kingdom. The initial conlusion to which one can come is that most of the earth has never and will never be able to enter the earthly kingdom. However, this is no concern to Mormons. Those not able to partake of the ordinances of the kingdom in this life are not lost forever. The availibilty of the blessings of entrance into the earthly Church will ultimately be available to all worthy.

Thus, there are two Churches, the Church of God in Heaven, and it's counterpart on earth. Mormons see there fellow non-Mormons as consenting members of the Church of the Firstborn and their brothers and sisters therein. Mormons however, knowing that only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, being established and upheld by God and being the only institution with the authority to perform the ordinances whereby one enters the kingdom of God on earth, look to provide all they can with the knowledge of it. It is the kingdom of God on earth.

Thus while Mormons are motivated to do missionary work and see the LDS Church as the only true and living Church upon the face of the earth, they do not see those who are not members as lost forever. In fact, the LDS view is actually quite positive if you think about it.

-a-train

[ErikJohnson]

Mormons see there fellow non-Mormons as consenting members of the Church of the Firstborn and their brothers and sisters therein.

Hey a-train—

Appreciate your post. I have to say I’ve never heard anyone use “Church” in such a context before. If I've understood you correctly, you’re saying that everyone on earth is a “consenting member” of God’s Church on the basis of their choice in a pre-existence. They can be Muslim, Hindu, atheist—it doesn’t matter. They can confess Jesus is God, deny Jesus is God—again it doesn’t matter. Everyone is a consenting member (whether they like it or not).

Kindly permit me a follow-up question: In your opinion, is there any significant distinction in the “Church of the Firstborn” between a Christian who worships Jesus as the Eternal God and a pagan who worships created things?

And do you have a reference for this all-encompassing definition of God’s Church? I’d be interested in knowing who first articulated such a view.

Thanks again, a-train

--Erik

[prisonchaplain]

I'm wondering what the similarity is between the LDS notion of me as a consenting member, though not part of God's authorized church on earth, and the Catholic notion that I am a "separated brother." Ironically, I'd be happy to see board members here in "my heaven," and y'all would be happy to see me in yours. :-)

[Jamie123]

Very interesting thread so far :) The ideas posted by A-Train about the "Church of the Firstborn" are certainly food for thought.

I know something that would likely lead to the creation of one church again. Severe persecution of all christians. If we are all facing death for our faith in Jesus, at that point we may care somewhat less for finer points of doctrinal difference and reach out in the common bond of our faith in Jesus.

I'm no expert on the early church, but wasn't the dispute between gnostics and "catholic" Christians going no at the same time as the persecution of ALL Christians by the Roman Empire?

[Aesa]

Your definition is generally correct. Up until groups like the Catholic and Latter-day Saint groups there's really no reference to an institutionalised 'body' of Christ which comprises the Church... certainly doesn't make it wrong though.

-----------

...wasn't the dispute between gnostics and "catholic" Christians.

Well that depends if we're speaking how the Bible tells it, and how history tells it -- because one differs from the other.

Historically the dispute was from the Gnostic Christians and the Literalist Christians. They both claimed to be part of the original church (and the historical evidence more strongly points to the Gnostics having come first). The Gnostic's believed in Jesus in the same way the ancients believed in the Sun God Horus, as a symbolic figure. The Literalists took everything to be grounded in history (i.e., Jesus lived and is exactly who he claimed to be), which is actually not verified by history at all.

That's absolutely a diversion from the topic of this thread, so I just wanted to make a point on that.

(We can have a separate discussion on that in another thread, if anyone wants to)

[Hemidakota]

Spin-off of a spin-off (“The Protestant Reformation…”)—

On that thread, an idea was put forward that “the true Church” was the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12, 18-20, 27-28, Colossians 1:18, Ephesians 1:22-23, 5:25). And that God’s Church is made up of all believers, regardless of denomination (or non-denomination).

An LDS poster dismissed the idea as a “contrived philosophy” and “quaint.”

I’m interested in exploring the idea further, in part motivated by the following article that seeks to define “the Church”—

Seattle Pastor Offers Clarity to 'Church'| Christianpost.com

Is there anything wrong with Pastor Mark Driscoll's definition? How would LDS prefer to see it defined?

--Erik

Church is nothing more than a organized body of Christ.

[ErikJohnson]

Church is nothing more than a organized body of Christ.

Hey Hemidakota—

I still think your avatar should be a Dodge Dakota pickup truck w/ the Hemi engine logo. I can only assume you own one (or aspire to--in which case you better hurry, ChryCo's going down). So do you?

Have to say the LDS responses (what few we've seen) have been surprising. The initial response (on the other thread) was that the definition was overly inclusive. This was followed by a-train’s assertion that it wasn’t inclusive enough (the Church of the Firstborn includes everyone). And then we have your somewhat cryptic reply.

Hoping you can unpack yours a little for us. When you say organized—do you mean as Paul describes it in 1 Corinthians 12? In it he writes, “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body… God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be.” Is this what you mean by organization—or do you mean something else?

--Erik

PS. There seems to be more non-LDS posters engaged on this thread than LDS. Where have all the LDS posters gone?

[Moksha]

Where have all the LDS posters gone?

The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind, along with the soldiers and flowers.

:)

[gajohn2]

I like Pastor Mark's definition of religion as "what we do for God and regeneration as "what God does for us."

[john doe]

PS. There seems to be more non-LDS posters engaged on this thread than LDS. Where have all the LDS posters gone?

Maybe it's because the LDS can see your motives and don't wish to engage you. There is nothing I can see to be gained by discussing the gospel with those who only wish to punch holes in it.

[Misshalfway]

This is an interesting topic. I find it interesting to learn how others see things with regards to what Jesus intended by establishing a church here on the earth and what components constitute the true and legitimate earthly organization he left for Peter and the rest to administer.

I know though, that because the two camps are so passionate that these conversations generally end up in contention. I suppose I am always saddened when that happens. Just know that none of my remarks are meant to upset anyone. I hope they can be received in a spirit of understanding and respect. And even though I may disagree, I do hope that you feel my respect for your cherished beliefs.

I am LDS and do feel that there was an apostasy after the death of the prophets and the persecution of the early followers of Christ. There was a church established with structure and that this structure and oneness was lost. This idea makes sense to me. I think that ever since that time of confusion and loss, Christians have been trying to put the pieces back together. Thank goodness they did!! Otherwise, we wouldn't have blessings such as the Bible, among other things. But, it seems clear there was arguments over doctrine and other issues over authority. And it seems clear the infighting in the Christian community has only ever continued. So many ideas. So many opinions. Fuzzy rules about who is a real believer and who is not. Lots of meetings to try to vote the groups into a consensus. If I didn't believe in modern day revelation, then this process might look very logical to me. I may very well be the only way to bring about compatibility.

I struggle with the ideas of the OP because I just don't think Jesus would have done it that way. I wasn't what he did when he descended on Jerusalem. I don't think if Jesus was here today that he would administer a variety of churches with a variety of overlapping and contradictory ideas even if some of those ideas were universally consistent. I think he would bring everything into harmony. I think he would establish the truth and correct the incorrect. And then I think he would invite all to come and learn and make a way for all to understand the same ideas in oneness. I don't think he wouldn't compromise the message to make it more appealing or more accessible or to stop contention. I think his life and death proved that he would stand his ground against the establishment if indeed the establishment was mistaken.

I understand that the true church of Christ has essential components; priesthood authority, proper ordinances, 12 apostles, and commandments, etc. Not to mention a congruency with the doctrine.

As I read the bible, I see Jesus and how he set things up with Peter at the head. I also find myself thinking of the scriptures as Jesus taught... "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:" (Matt 12 :25)

I can see why this idea presented by the OP is appealing. It feels like a kind and inclusive and diplomatic perspective. I just don't read the Bible and especially the writings of Paul (in his efforts to unite the cities in oneness of practice and doctrine) and see that Jesus meant to do anything but establish one church with very clear directives. One faith, one baptism. I suppose we mormon's say that a lot. :)

Had he come and gathered the Sadduces and Pharasees and diaspora jews and simply allowed them their space while preaching love..... Or if one could show that it was Jesus who established the idea that denomination was irrelevant today....meaning thru revelation.........then maybe I could be persuaded.

Surely, you all have some thoughts on what I have said. Go easy on me. :)

Edited June 29, 2009 by Misshalfway

[Faded]

Well, I’ve been without Internet access for quite awhile, so my apologies for being gone for so long. I still have no intenet access, but I’m just staying after work and using that connection.

Spin-off of a spin-off (“The Protestant Reformation…”)—

On that thread, an idea was put forward that “the true Church” was the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12, 18-20, 27-28, Colossians 1:18, Ephesians 1:22-23, 5:25). And that God’s Church is made up of all believers, regardless of denomination (or non-denomination).

An LDS poster dismissed the idea as a “contrived philosophy” and “quaint.”

I’m interested in exploring the idea further, in part motivated by the following article that seeks to define “the Church”—

Seattle Pastor Offers Clarity to 'Church'| Christianpost.com

Is there anything wrong with Pastor Mark Driscoll's definition? How would LDS prefer to see it defined?

--Erik

I presume you’re talking about my comment Erik. I have something of a dual-view of the notion of “The Body of Christ” as it is understood by most Protestants – all believers in Christ.

Firstly, we know this much from the Bible:

“21 Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

22 Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?"

23 And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness." – Matthew 7:21-23. Not every person who describes themselves as a follower of Jesus Christ will be heirs to His kingdom. Hypocrites from all denominations are all a part of this. This applies particularly well to “Sunday Christians” and “Sunday Mormons.” There is a lot of people who will be surprised when Christ rejects them apparently.

Many good non-LDS folks will be heirs to “all that the Father hath.” Many LDS folks will not. This is because there are both truly devoted followers of Christ and hypocrites in every Christian religion. There has always been room for other Christians in our understanding of Heaven. They must still come in by the door, but they’ll have the chance to do so. So in once sense, “the Body of Christ” theological theory has merit and validity.

But is the “Body of Christ” described in Ephesians intended to mean a chaotic mess of over 30,000 belief sets and an endless variability on “truth.” Lets look at the passage:

“[3] Endeavouring to keep the [u[unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

[4] There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

[5] One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

[6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

[7] But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

[11] And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

[12] For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

[13] Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ:

[14] That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;”

Several things are clear from this reference:

1.) The Church or Body of Christ is united.

2.) Christ provided for us special individuals whose purpose was to keep us united in the faith, belief, doctrine and all things. Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers are all specifically mentioned.

3.) The intent of the Body of Christ is to lead us further and further into the knowledge of the Son of God until our knowledge and understanding is perfect. .

4.) There is obviously is a significant concern that Christ’s Church would encounter false doctrines. Apparently, true doctrine was always intended to exist hand-in-hand with Christ’s Church.

Okay, so does modern Christianity fit the description? They certainly are not united, they have an endless list of doctrinal disputes from one denomination to the next, and for the most part, Christianity avoids inter-denominational discussions of doctrine if they want to have any hope of ever working together to accomplish anything. So if that is The Body of Christ then doctrine within said body is in complete chaos, so much so that it has become a taboo to talk about it. How can that organization qualify to be the True Body of Christ? Does God have more than 30,000 versions of truth that are all acceptable in His eyes? Or has God given up on the notion of teaching all of his children one set of universal truths? The passage seems to say otherwise.

Prior to the Protestant Reformation, this was not nearly as confusing of course. There was a true sense of Christian unity, even if it was riddled with false doctrines (according to both Protestant and LDS viewpoints.) The true source of the notion that all 30,000+ denominations exist within a mystical/invisible “Body of Christ” is really something else altogether. Protestantism in particular finds itself in a world with thousands of versions of truth in this world, all claiming to be correct and all claiming to be followers of Christ. The application of the term “Body of Christ” to the chaotic mess that we refer to as Christianity is a very Protestant way to appeal for reconciliation, rather than condemning to Hell for eternity everyone who disagrees with you. It is a move in the right direction, but it bears absolutely no resemblance the entity Paul was describing.

To a Catholic, the Church/Body of Christ = The Holy Catholic Church.

To a Latter Day Saint, the Church/Body of Christ = The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

To a Protestant, the Church/Body of Christ = pretty much everybody who claims to follow Jesus Christ, but with certain exceptions. Protestantism does not agree on the exceptions either.

Three opinions on what “The Body of Christ” is. The LDS and Catholic viewpoint of seems to be a lot more Scripturally accurate to me because the Bible seems to be talking about a real entity that is a united organization. The Protestant opinion is a serious stretch, but it certain does promote peace on Earth. So while I think the application of the term “Body of Christ” is contrived and a bit thrown together, it’s done with good intentions at heart with good results.

I’ve said my peace on the matter and everyone is welcome to disagree of course. I am extremely curious though … Erik, does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints fit within your notion of The Body of Christ or not? In this thread, you’ve already stated that you don’t feel that acceptance of specific Creeds or Dogmas is requisite. Does that mean that “Mormons” are not damned to spend eternity in Hell, and might just be saved in the Kingdom of God (in your opinion)? Or do we not qualify? If we don’t qualify, why not? I’m curious what your reasoning on this point is.