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]

Originally Posted by ErikJohnson

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by a-train

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.

Originally Posted by AnthonyB

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?