What is the Church?

[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]

Originally Posted by 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

Church is nothing more than a organized body of Christ.

[ErikJohnson]

Originally Posted by Hemidakota

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]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

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]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

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.

[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.

Originally Posted by 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

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[/u] 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.