The Proper Unity of the church

The book of Romans lays out the basic tenets of the Christian faith.
How much space does Paul use on teaching about "the mother of God"?

None.


True. But the fact that Mary is the Mother of God is a deduction from the fact that Jesus is God and that He was born of Mary. Is no doctrine that doesn't appear word-for-word in the Book of Romans allowed to be believed in your church?

And the Apostle John has the Lord dismiss her on one occasion saying "Woman, what do I have in this that concerns you? My hour has not yet come." (John 2:4)

A few points here:

1) It has been suggested by people who are far more familiar with Greek than I am that "lady" would be a better translation of the Greek word used here (which I believe is "gyne" ) than "woman".

2) A more literal translation reads "Woman, what is that to thee and me? My hour is not yet come."

3) She then tells the servants, "Do whatever he tells you," whereupon He complies with her request despite "dismissing" it. (That, by the way, is her message to us as well.)

Since Paul authored some 13 of the 27 books of the New Testament how come we don't see him pouring out adorations of Mary as his mother ?

I don't know for sure. Maybe she didn't want him to, and he complied with her request. (After all, she lived for quite a few years while the Apostles were writing the NT.)

The RCC has taken Venus or some other female godess, bestowed on her the name of Mary and demanded that adoration of "the mother of God" be heaped upon her.

Where did you get this? It's simply false.

Since Christ is God incarnated as a man, your premise is arguable. Perhaps in some sense right. How much space in the New Testament is devoted to lifting up "the Mother of God" for worship, prayers, intercession, and adoration ?

Not much, obviously. (And nowhere in the Church or the Bible is she "lifted up for worship." As I said before, Catholics do not worship Mary; we only worship God.)

Nothing is taught about this. What little is said about the woman who was chosen "among" woman (rather than ABOVE) other woman, has been completely blown up out of proportion.

It's hard to maintain a proportion between the one chosen to bear God in her womb and other women, and not only that, but to have the privilege of raising the Son of God in her house for thirty years, of supporting Him (and perhaps having Him support her by the labor of his hands). Sure that doesn't make her divine; she isn't God; but she has been closer to God, by God's choice, than any other human being.

Why this took so long to get out and be appreciated, I don't know. The Christian faith didn't spring up in its full development overnight. Jesus promised to LEAD the Church into all truth. Infallibility is a promise never to be led into error, not to have all the truth all at once.

"Another parable He spoke to them: The kingdom of the heavens is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal until the whole was leavened." (Matt. 13:33)

The meaning of this parable is similar to the meaning of the parable of the mustard seed that broke the law of nature and grew to be a huge tree with birds lodging in its branches (13:31,32)

Christ is the unleavened fine flour. And the church is the practical kingdom of the heavens. The church must be a loaf of unleavened bread (1 Cor. 5:7-8). In the Scripture leaven signifies evil things (1 Cor. 5:6,8) and evil doctrines (Matt. 16:6, 11-12).

The Roman Catholic Church, which was fully and officially formed in the sixth century and is signified by the woman in this parable, took many pagan practices, heretical doctrines, and evil matters and mixed them with the teachings concerning Christ, leavening the whole content of Christianity.

This is altogether false. In the first place, the name "Roman Catholic Church" is an Anglican invention, constructed to allow the parallel of an "Anglican Catholic Church" (a name I note you have disapproved of elsewhere). The Church calls itself simply "the Church," or "the Catholic Church" when some further distinction is necessary.

This mixture became the corrupted content of the facade of the kingdom of the heavens. And this is why RCC has a totally bloated up monsterous tradition of "the mother of God". It is a tumor, a cancer of paganism mixed in to attract the masses of the world.

Funny you should call "wonderful" the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, and then call one of its logical consequences "monstrous." You need to get the idea that we "worship" Our Lady out of your head. It is untrue. Mary is always united with Her Son, Jesus. She always points to Him. She is always saying to us, His servants, "Do whatever He tells you." All her honor is a reflection of His glory. All the power of intercession she has she gets from Him.

Yet [b]"meal" in the parable is for making the meal offering (Lev. 2:1) as a symbol of Christ as food to both God and man. Three measures of meal is the quantity needed to make a full meal (Genesis 18:6) . So the hiding of the leaven in three measures of meal signifies that the Roman Catholic Church has fully leavened in a hidden wat all the teachings concerning Christ the Son of God.[/b]

I don't follow this. Where does it come from, other than out of your own head?

Our Lord compares the Kingdom of God to leaven. Leaven in this sense is a GOOD thing, a small thing that has big effects (or in the case of the mustard seed, a small thing whose product is quite large).

The "Mother of God" is a Satanic ploy to distract people away from Christ the Son of God. And this leavening process is against the Scripture which strongly forbids putting any leaven into the meal offering (Lev. 2:4-5.11)

Sure, for a short time every year, and always in some circumstances, leaven was forbidden to the Jews.

But the Mother of God is not Satan's plot, but Jesus'--to give us another avenue to come to Him.

===========================================
Of course, it is a lot more complicated than that, since Jesus is fully God and fully man, and his two natures are united inseparably in one person, according to the council of Ephesus in AD 431.
===================================

This is wonderful teaching. This we can accept. But we should reject the destructive and corrupting LEAVEN of Mary worship. And that even if there seems some grammatical ground to launch a teaching about it.

The Devil is very subtle you know ?

Yes, we should absolutely reject Mary-worship. And we do 🙂

But again, leaven and the mustard seed are used as positive images of the Kingdom of God by Our Lord, not negative ones. This is clearer in the versions of these parables in Mark and Luke.


Believers involved in idolatry may be saved but they will not participate in the kingdom of God in the millennial kingdom following the second coming of Christ:

"And the works of the flesh are manifest, which aer such things as fornication, uncleaness, lasciviousness, IDOLATRY, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, FACTIONS, DIVISIONS, SECTS envyings, bouts of drunkenness, carousings, and things like these, of which I tell you beforehand, even as I have said before, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." (Galatians 5:19-21 my emphasis)

Mary worship is idolatry. Idolatry is one of the works of the flesh. If a Christians has a lifestyle of IDOLATRY he is in danger of being excluded from the kingdom of God. He will be disciplined during the 1,000 year millennial kingdom following the second coming of Christ.

Paul warns the Christians beforehand. He has told them this before. Those who habitually practice idolatry without repentance will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Included in things which will exclude the redeemed Christian from the reward of the millennial kingdom also include "factions, divisions, sects". This list of abominable lifestyles is only representative and not exhaustive. Paul says "and things LIKE these" .

When we become aware that we are involved in idolatry we must repent and forsake this sin. So if you are a Christian deceived by the RCC or by any group to worship "the Mother of God" you need to repent before the Lord of something which can cause you not to be able to inherit the kingdom of God.

Again: honoring the Mother of God as the Mother of God, as the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus named her (after it defined the Hypostatic Union in what you called "wonderful teaching" above--and it is), is NOT worshipping her or committing idolatry.

Yes, the Devil is subtle. He wants nothing more than faction, disagreement, and division amongst Christians. But the one Church of Christ already exists, and has since Pentecost Sunday, and will continue until His return. It is the Catholic Church.

Originally posted by jaywill
So let's get things stirred up a bit. We are talking about the Proper Unity of the Church. I will preface some explanations about this proper unity with some negative statements about what the unity of the church is not.

.... lots of very commonsensical stuff snipped ....

The God ordained unity for church establishment is that one city should be matched with one church.

....

This is the minimun requirement to keep Christian unity in the establishing of churches on the earth. The believers in a city should constitute the city wide, locality wide church taking the boundary of that city or locality. This principle is not violated in the New Testament. And Christian would be well to return to this way.

They never left it. Just ask the Bishops and Archbishops of Rome, Milan, Denver, New York, Melbourne, Toronto, Chicago, Atlanta, Knoxville, Raleigh, Lincoln....

🙂

By the way, I don't necessarily agree that this is the "God-ordained" way of organizing churches... God gave the Apostles a pretty free hand in the organization of things, and this was likely (it seems to me) one of their decisions. But it is convenient.

Originally posted by pyxelated
Originally posted by jaywill
[b]So let's get things stirred up a bit. We are talking about the Proper Unity of the Church. I will preface some explanations about this proper unity with some negative statements about what the unity of the church is not.

.... lots of very commonsensical stuff snipped ....

The God ordained unity for church est ...[text shortened]... Denver, New York, Melbourne, Toronto, Chicago, Atlanta, Knoxville, Raleigh, Lincoln....

🙂

=====================================
They never left it. Just ask the Bishops and Archbishops of Rome, Milan, Denver, New York, Melbourne, Toronto, Chicago, Atlanta, Knoxville, Raleigh, Lincoln....
=====================================
[/b]
My time is very limited until this evening and I am writing from the public library.

The congregation in Milan is that of the Roman church in Milan. The assembly in Denver is of the Church in Rome in Denver. And the gathering in New York is of Rome's Church in New York.

This is not what we see in the New Testament. We do not see the Jerusalem Church in Antioch or the Jerusalem Church in Philippi or the Jerusalem Church in Thessalonika.

So RCC has stretched the jurisdiction of the church in Rome over all other cities in the world. So you have the Church of Rome in various cities.

By comparing Acts 14:23 with Titus 1:5 we can see that Paul and his co-workers "ordained them elders in every church" and instructed an apostle to "ordain elders in every city". These two verses correspond and agree with each other. "Every church" is in "every city".

There were plural churches in Galatia. The Holy Spirit has in Scripture "the churches (plural) of Galatia" (Gal. 1:2) It was not one big Galatian Church for Galatia consists of many cities.

There were many cities in Judea. So the Holy Spirit has in Scripture "the churches (plural) in Judea" (1 Thess. 2:14) a province. There was not a Judean Church.

There were mentioned "the seven churches in Asia". They were not combined to be the Church in Asia. And it is also "the churches" in Syria and Cilicia (districts) (Acts 15:41)

We do not have the Jerusalem Church in Asia, or the Jerusalem Church in Judea or the Jerusalem Church or Jerusalem churches in Syria and Cilicia.

Yet you have Rome's Church in Milan, Rome's Church in Toronto and Rome's Church in Chicago. This is an invention of man.

The other devastating error is that RCC's church is comprised of those who have received Christ and those who have not received Christ, and by the millions.

It is far off of the plan of God. The boundary, the jurisdiction of the church on the earth is limited to a locality. And one locality should not have administrative oversight over all other localities. Your Roman Catholic Church established in Chicago, Milan, Toronto attempts to carry out this deviation from God's way.

I will have to see to your other comments above latter this evening Lord willing.
What is at stake here is not something personal. It is the truth of the Bible and the most blessed way for Christians to proceed in God's economy.

========================================
True. But the fact that Mary is the Mother of God is a deduction from the fact that Jesus is God and that He was born of Mary. Is no doctrine that doesn't appear word-for-word in the Book of Romans allowed to be believed in your church?
=========================================

Do you remember how the Devil tempted Christ to jump off of the top of the temple because of a verse which said "To His angels He shall give charge concerning You, and on their hands they shall bear You up, lest You strike Your foot against a stone." (Matt. 4:6 comp Psalm 91:11-12)

There was such a verse in the Old Testament. Satan's subtlety utilized it in a twisted way to lead astray the Son of God.
I am sure that the apparent ground of Mary being Christ's mother and this "Mother of God" doctrine is a similar trick.

=============================================
A few points here:

1) It has been suggested by people who are far more familiar with Greek than I am that "lady" would be a better translation of the Greek word used here (which I believe is "gyne" ) than "woman".

2) A more literal translation reads "Woman, what is that to thee and me? My hour is not yet come."

3) She then tells the servants, "Do whatever he tells you," whereupon He complies with her request despite "dismissing" it. (That, by the way, is her message to us as well.)
==========================================

But this blowing up of the importance of Mother and Child has roots in many pre-Christian pagan religions.
To the ancient Chinese a mother godess Shingmoo the "Holy Mother" is pictured with child in arms and rays of glory around her head.

The ancient Germans worshipped Hertha with child in arms.
The ancient Scandinavians called her Disa who was pictured with a child.
The Etruscans called her Nutra.
The Druids worhipped Virgo-Patitura as the "Mother of God".
In India she was known as Indrani and was represented with child in arms.
To the ancient Greeks she was known as Aphodite or Ceres.
To the Sumerians she was known as Nana.
To the olden Romans she was Fortuna and her child Jupiter.
In Asia the mother was known as Cybele and the child as Deoius.

One writer says "But regardless of her name or place ...she was the wife of Baal, the virgin queen of heaven, who bore fruit although she never conceived."

The Roman Catholic church subsummed the tradition of the Mother and Child devotion and assigned Mary and Jesus to the concept. This was corrupting leaven stealthfully mixed into the pure Gospel message.

===================================
The RCC has taken Venus or some other female godess, bestowed on her the name of Mary and demanded that adoration of "the mother of God" be heaped upon her.

Where did you get this? It's simply false.
===================================

The above information I derived from Babylon Mystery Religion - Ancient and Modern by Ralph Eduard Woodrow.
I did not notice that Venus was mentioned. So I may be in error on that detail. But I did say "or some other female godess".

That is all I can respond right now.

Just to step in and clarify on this issue. The RCC claims to be the true visible church which Christ founded. What this means is that the Pope and the bishops in communion with him are valid successors of the apostles and the doctrines of the Church and its sacramental life all are all part of the revelation of Christ. Basically, the Catholic Church is the same Church as the one Christ established.

Now Jaywill is confused about what this means. It does not mean that the RCC is the body of Christ. The body of Christ is the invisible church -- it consists of all those who are known only to God to be sanctified. Those for example who were baptised outside the RCC, those who were never baptised but pursue a virtuous life, are also part of the body of Christ. The RCC does not claim to be this body. Similarly Judas was an apostle, a visible member of Christ's early church, but not strictly a true member of Christ's body. He betrayed him, right?

To respond to a few particular points of Jaywill's, the RCC does teach that membership in the Church requires regeneration. This is the sacrament of baptism which removes original sin. Catholics do not worship Mary at all. Mary is regarded as the greatest of the saints, as the mother of God, by whose consent to God's will the whole plan of salvation was possible. They do not however give her worship -- they do not offer sacrifice to her, for example.

Now obviously in many past religions people honored a virginal woman who bore a divine son (though I am unconvinced that any example Jaywill offered matches the Christ-Mary relationship). This is hardly suprising -- virginity and divine filiation are popular themes of any religion. Freud thought that there was in fact a psychological need for them. But anyway, if you are going to say that the RCC borrowed from other religious practices in its Marian cult, why not say the same of the gospel writers? Why not say that Matthew and Luke similarly borrowed from pagan sources to concoct this story of the virgin mother and divine son?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]========================================
True. But the fact that Mary is the Mother of God is a deduction from the fact that Jesus is God and that He was born of Mary. Is no doctrine that doesn't appear word-for-word in the Book of Romans allowed to be believed in your church?
=========================================

Do you remember how the De ...[text shortened]... ome other female godess".

That is all I can respond right now.[/b]

I really doubt that Mary is just a renamed version of Venus -- the goddess of sex.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I really doubt that Mary is just a renamed version of Venus -- the goddess of sex.

Conrau K,

I retracted the Venus assertion. Rechecking one of my sources failed to provide the name Venus.

You probably know that libraries could be devoted to the subject matter.

With the limitation of Internet posts (rather than a full fledged book here) I will offer some response in kind. Stay tuned.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Just to step in and clarify on this issue. The RCC claims to be the true visible church which Christ founded. What this means is that the Pope and the bishops in communion with him are valid successors of the apostles and the doctrines of the Church and its sacramental life all are all part of the revelation of Christ. Basically, the Catholic Church ...[text shortened]... larly borrowed from pagan sources to concoct this story of the virgin mother and divine son?

Well, actually the Catholic Church does claim to be the (Mystical) Body of Christ... a small (but important) point.

But you are right that salvation is possible for those who are not formally members of the Catholic Church, although even they are saved through the Church. How likely this is, I have no idea... but objectively speaking, the Church is necessary for salvation. This is covered here: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp

=================================================
Now Jaywill is confused about what this means. It does not mean that the RCC is the body of Christ. The body of Christ is the invisible church -- it consists of all those who are known only to God to be sanctified. Those for example who were baptised outside the RCC, those who were never baptised but pursue a virtuous life, are also part of the body of Christ. The RCC does not claim to be this body. Similarly Judas was an apostle, a visible member of Christ's early church, but not strictly a true member of Christ's body. He betrayed him, right?
==============================================

Any group which has a principle of including believers and non-believers is not a church. The RCC has a principle of including Christians with non-Christians. This is not a church. And to leave such a group is not to break Christian oneness.

It is true that Christians do not always know if another person is a true Christian. But that is not the problem here. The problem is that if Christians KNOW that someone is not a Christian do they include that person as a member of their "church" ? If they do as a principle of receiving unbelievers to mix them with believers, that is not a church.

The oneness of Christians includes only God's children through regeneration. That is why Paul described the church as His Body. His Body contains His Spirit. And His Spirit is the life. Those who have the life of Christ are members of the Body of Christ. Those who do not have the life of Christ are not of the Body of Christ.

Christian oneness can only be applied to God's children. It cannot include those who are nominal. The nominal who want to call themselves Christian are of the world. They are still sinners in the eyes of God in need of redemption and cannot be included in the Body of Christ until they receive Christ into them.

Of course a church may make a mistake. And I have to correct a mistake I made previously.

1.) A mistake in procedure is to unknowingly include a non-believer as a member in the church.

2.) A mistake in principle is a policy to include a non-believer as a member of the church.

Constantine, at the point of a spear, brought thousands of unbelievers into the "church". And the confusion that it caused was the basis for developing a doctrine of the visible and invisible church. The RCC took the lead to include the world into the church. And in the Reformation the state churches pulled away but kept the practice of including unbelievers in their "church".

For example, the state churches include non-believers in their national church. If you are born English then you are automatically of the Church of England. Then the FIRST natural birth is all that is needed to be a member of that church. The SECOND birth of regeneration - to be born again, is not needed. So the Church of England is not a real church.

But she took to practice from that Roman Catholic "Church" from which she came out. For sure the RCC has a principle of including those born again WITH those not born again.

This is wrong because the church is the Body of Christ - "And He subjected all things under His feet and gave Hims to be Head over all things to the church, which is His Body, the fullness of the One who fills all in all." (Eph. 1:22,23)

I would draw your attention to the words " ... the church, which is His Body ...". The church is the Body of Christ.

I will continue.

==========================================
Those for example who were baptised outside the RCC, those who were never baptised but pursue a virtuous life, are also part of the body of Christ. The RCC does not claim to be this body. Similarly Judas was an apostle, a visible member of Christ's early church, but not strictly a true member of Christ's body. He betrayed him, right?
==========================================

It is impossible that a genuine apostle could not be a member of Christ's Body. Only a nominal Christian - an unbeliever who has not been born again, if pretending to be an apostle, is not a member of Christ's Body.

I do not know if you are speaking of Judas who betrayed the Lord Jesus. Judas was not a member of the brotherhood of believers. It would have been better for him had he never been born (Mark 14:21; Matt. 26:24) How could it be said of someone eternally redeemed and given the gift of eternal life that it would have been good for him if he had never been born ?

A member of the church is a member of the Body. A member in the Body of Christ is a constituent of the church for the church is His Body. It may be true that the manifestation of the Body of Christ in the local church in Rome may admit that they are not the entire Body of Christ. For there are those members in other cities and other localities.

But the church in Rome cannot include unbelievers with believers into a mass of confusion. To rationalize this confusion a doctrine of the visible and invisible church was invented.

Since the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant state churches tried to include unsaved and unregenerated unbelievers as "members" they violated the truth of the Gospel. They made regeneration unnecessary. If Christianity was the state religion of England then all born English would be Christians. The same is true with all other nations. They carried over the error from the RCC.

The result was that "churches" were filled with the unsaved. We thank God that there were some saved believers among them. But what was sacrificed was the clear truth that it was not enough to be born first to be a Christian. One must be born first and then born again. So these entities of mixture were not churches becuase of the principle of receiving those whom Christ had not or had not YET received.

Consequently, a certain kind of doctrine was concocted. They believers, in order to deal with the total confusion, decided to imagine that the church is of two kinds, one visible and the other invisible. That is one church with a form and another without a form. They said that the church mentioned in Scripture is invisible and spiritual, but the church we now have is visible and with a form. The visible church includes false Christians. But in the invisible church there are only real Christians.

Since man's idea was to include unbelievers into the church, the visible church became unreliable and undependable. Since man captured in England all the English in one net, and in Germany all the Germans in one net, and in the Neatherlands all the Dutch in one net to make a Church of England, a German Church, or a Dutch Church these visible churches became so loose that anything could be found in them. This error they brought over from the RCC.

Now they could not help but come up with a doctrine of two churches - one visible and undependable and one invisible and dependable.

Your version of this is quite similar Canrau. You propose a realable Body of Christ in addition to a church. But the boundary of the Christian church is the boundary of the Body of Christ. Those within the boundary of the Body are also within the boundary of the church. At least they are constituents of the church universal. They may not all live in one place on earth.

A church should admit to be the Body of Christ. That way she receives in principle all who are of the Body. If this "church" tries to enlarge her boundary to include those not of the Body her standing as a church is destroyed. That is instead the world - a mixture of the wheat and the tares.

The wheat should be one with the wheat. The wheat does not have to be one with the tares in the church. It is true that Christ said that in the world we cannot separate the wheat from the tares. Let both grow together and the angels at the end of the age will do the separating. But that is in the world, (Matt.13:38 the field is the world).

In the church, only the wheat belongs, in principle. Yes a church may be fooled on an occasion. Yes, a church may mistakenly treat an unbeliever as a Christian brother. This is not the problem. The problem is: there should not be a principle, a policy of including non-believers into the church. Then that entity is not a church.

Since misled men expanded the church to be as big as the world, naturally the tares came in. And to deal with the confusion the could only explain that the undependable mixture was the visible church and the dependable gathering was the invisible church.

Any group which has a principle of including believers and non-believers is not a church. The RCC has a principle of including Christians with non-Christians. This is not a church. And to leave such a group is not to break Christian oneness.

... snip ...

The oneness of Christians includes only God's children through regeneration. That is why Paul described the church as His Body. His Body contains His Spirit. And His Spirit is the life. Those who have the life of Christ are members of the Body of Christ. Those who do not have the life of Christ are not of the Body of Christ.


We are made members of Christ--"born again"--by baptism--the "laver of regeneration" (Titus 3:5; also see John 3:3ff, Acts 2:37ff). A baptized person is by that fact a Christian. Whether he is a good or bad Christian is a completely separate question; but he is incorporated into Christ's mystical Body, the Church, by baptism.

There is one Church, the one that Our Lord refers to as "my church" and St. Paul as "the church of God" (drbo.org has an excellent search engine; please use it and save me some typing 🙂 ) Each local church has its bishop, its overseer; and in the true church these leaders are in communion with each other. When widespread disputes arise, as they always do, the one Church doesn't split; the bishops get together and resolve them, as they did in Acts 15, under the leadership of Peter, and members of the one Church "hear the church" or become "as the publican or harlot." The Roman Church, since it is led by the successor to the head of the Apostles, is "first among equals" in this communion.

It isn't up to us to sort out the elect and the damned here; we don't even know for sure which of these classes we belong to, finally. True, we are to be prudent in our associations--but that doesn't mean we consign all those apparently "outside the pale" to the flames.

Like yours, my time is limited, and I'd like to say much more than I seem to be capable of on short notice. So this, too, shall continue (God willing 🙂 )....

Originally posted by pyxelated
[b] Any group which has a principle of including believers and non-believers is not a church. The RCC has a principle of including Christians with non-Christians. This is not a church. And to leave such a group is not to break Christian oneness.

... snip ...

The oneness of Christians includes only God's children through regeneration. That is why Pa le of on short notice. So this, too, shall continue (God willing 🙂 )....

============================================
We are made members of Christ--"born again"--by baptism--the "laver of regeneration" (Titus 3:5; also see John 3:3ff, Acts 2:37ff). A baptized person is by that fact a Christian. Whether he is a good or bad Christian is a completely separate question; but he is incorporated into Christ's mystical Body, the Church, by baptism.
============================================= [/b]

Do you think that unbelievers led down to the baptismal at the point of Constantine's swords we all garuanteed to be born again ? Thousand were forced or bribed with material rewards to be baptized by Constantine. Many of them did not receive the renewing of the Holy Spirit or receive the Holy Spirit at all. Yet they became members of the Church.

If you are forced down to the "laver" at the point of a spear, where is "the renewing of the Holy Spirit" ? The Dove of the Holy Spirit did not ride on the tip of Constantine's sharp spears. When Jesus said to go compel them to come into the kingdom of God I don't think He meant coerce them with swords and spears.
The presence of a physical laver "of regeneration" in this case could not assure that the one threatened received voluntarily the gentle dove of the Holy Spirit.

Now you have refered to the English "regeneration" in Titus 3:5. But this is not the same Greek word as is found in 1 Peter 1:23 where we are told of "Having been regenerated not of corruptible seed but of incorruptible, through the living and abiding word of God."

"Regenerated" in 1 Peter 1:23 is a different word from "regeneration" in Titus. The only other place in the NT the word translated "regeneration" is found is in Matt. 19:28 where it speaks of the millennial kingdom as the regeneration or "restoration".

Now I do believe that this restoration that Paul mentions in Titus 3:5 involves the Holy Spirit. Paul says "He saved us, through the washing [laver] of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit...". But it cannot mean that some physical laver alone possesses in its material essence a guarantee that the living and abiding word of God embodies.

One who receives the living and abiding word of God through faith will be born again. One forced to the laver of baptism may not be born again. Such a forced one may be officially recognized as now a member of the Roman Catholic Church. But that one may not have ever received the living and abiding word of the Gospel into his heart by faith.



This regeneration that Paul speaks certainly commences with being born again and continues with a life long reconditioning, remaking or remodeling with the divine life. But if one has not received the divine life, though he may be made wet at the laver no regeneration in this sense will begin until such time as he DOES receive the living and abiding word as the incorruptible seed of life.

I think you are trying to assure that the physical baptismal, the laver interacted with cannot fail to result in a man being added to the church. But many interacted with the laver and were not added to Christ's Body because they were not born again. These may have been added to your "Church" as a manmade organization.

How can I not understand it this way since it is obvious that millions of human beings are members of the Roman Catholic Church who are not indwelt with the Holy Spirit.

I have heard Catholics sware and curse with the name Jesus without a slightest conviction of sinning. But the word says "Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking in the Spirit of God says, Jesus is accursed ..." (1 Cor. 12:3)

When I hear a religious person use the name of Jesus Christ only as a two part curse word, I don't care how wet they got at the Catholic laver or any other institution's baptismal. It is hard to believe that that person has the Spirit of God.

I think your laver has added millions of unbelievers to a manmade "Church" as a mixture of the saved with the unsaved.

But to those who are regenerated by the living word of God, the process of restoration, ie "regeration," and remodeling may take place, saving them from the old man.

For this saving of Titus 3:5 is the putting off of the old man as in baptism mentioned in Rom. 6:3-5. See the ongoing and growing nature of this saving in Romans 6:

"Or are you ignorant that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus jave been baptized into His death?

We have been buried therefore with Him through baptism into His death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so also we might walk in newness of life.

For if we have GROWN together with Him in the likeness of His death, indeed we will also be [in the lifeness] of His resurrection ..." (my emphasis)

The GROWING into the likeness of His death is akin to the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit. While the growth commences with being born again it continues life long in a growth, and a process of putting off the old man and putting on the new man.

I would not accept then your usage of Titus 3:5 as a guarantee that all babies and adult unbelievers who are initiated at the Catholic laver, because of this are known to be saved.

Many of them only got wet. I thank God for those who DID get saved though.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Just to step in and clarify on this issue. The RCC claims to be the true visible church which Christ founded. What this means is that the Pope and the bishops in communion with him are valid successors of the apostles and the doctrines of the Church and its sacramental life all are all part of the revelation of Christ. Basically, the Catholic Church larly borrowed from pagan sources to concoct this story of the virgin mother and divine son?

=====================================
The body of Christ is the invisible church -- it consists of all those who are known only to God to be sanctified.
=====================================

The oneness for which Jesus Christ prayed for was to be a oneness to convince the world:

"I in them, and You in Me, that they may be perfected into one, that the world may know that You have sent Me and have loved them even as You have loved Me." (John 17:22)

This oneness therefore has to be something visible rather than invisible.

The Body of Christ most have visible manifestations then in various cities where the church in that city is standing. A manifestation of the Body of Christ in Corinth may not include those in Philippi or those in Rome. But it must represent the Body of Christ visibly made known in Corinth.

This is a practical and visible oneness that is something that the world can see. So it is wrong to say that the Body must be invisible. Rather the perfecting into one has as a goal that the world may see the visible manifestation of the one Body in various localities.

When Paul was persecuting the church in Jerusalem or the believers in Damascus the Lord Jesus said to him "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute ME?" . To persecute the Christians was to persecute Christ Himself.

The church was Him. The church was His Body. He did not say "Why do you persecute My people?" Nor did Jesus say "Why do you persecute My saints?" He did not even say "Why do you persecute My church?"

He said "Why do you persecute ME ?" The saints were the corporate Christ. The saints were the aggregate "ME" of Jesus Himself. Saul could not persecute that which was invisible. Saul could only go after the believers who he visibly could see. And those believers were Christ's Body - they were "the Christ" .

"For even as the body is one and has many members, yet all the members of the body, being many, are one body, so also is the Christ." (1 Cor. 12:12)

Again here, the many members are "the Christ". The many members are the Body of Christ. The Head is in Heaven. But the Head is ALSO in all the believers on the earth.

The Head of the Body is in Heaven - " .. it is Christ Jesus who died and, rather, who was raised, WHO IS ALSO AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD ..." (Rom. 8:34)

The Head of the Body is ALSO IN all the members of the Body who are on earth - "But if Christ is IN YOU ..." (Rom. 8:9) [/b]

All the churches in the New Testament are designated according to cities. That is one city matched with one church.

Four mentions are made of the church in someone's house. And you do have the mention of the churches of the Gentiles.

The churches of the Gentiles are also local churches according to localities.
And the churches in someone's house were local churches which started as meetings in someone's house.

Now it is true that in the final analysis ONLY God knows those who have His life.

This fact does not mean the following:

1.) Because only God knows who really has His divine life therefore we should accept the whole world into a church.

2.) Because only God knows who really has His divine life therefore we should not ENCOURAGE the believers that they should be SURE that they have it:

Ie. "I have written these things to you that you may know that you have eternal life, to you who believe into the name of the Son of God." (1 John 5:13)

3.) Because only God knows who really has His divine life therefore we should put up a facade of humility and act like we really don't know that we have His life.


We should be sure we have His life.
We should the more live by that life.
We should encourage the saved that they can be certain that they are saved.
We should not encourage the saved to be ambiguous about their standing.
We should receive into the local church all who have that divine life.
We should have a principle that if they have the divine life the local church is as much theirs as it is ours regardless if they choose to meet with it or not.

Having done all these, yes, only God's angels will be able to separate false believers from true ones in the "field" of "the world" (Matt. 13:38) .

We Christians should not try to go thoughout the world and kill or eliminate the "tares" so that only "wheat" exists. The Christians should not expect to eliminate nominal Christians, false believers, from the world.

That does not mean we are obligated to receive them into the Christian churches.
And we Christians should come back to the way of one city matched with one church.

www.localchurches.org

Originally posted by pyxelated
[b] Any group which has a principle of including believers and non-believers is not a church. The RCC has a principle of including Christians with non-Christians. This is not a church. And to leave such a group is not to break Christian oneness.

... snip ...

The oneness of Christians includes only God's children through regeneration. That is why Pa le of on short notice. So this, too, shall continue (God willing 🙂 )....

==============================================
There is one Church, the one that Our Lord refers to as "my church" and St. Paul as "the church of God" (drbo.org has an excellent search engine; please use it and save me some typing )
=========================================== [/b]

The website is nicely laid out. I kept the link for future reference.
I may not refer to it in this discussion as much as you would like.

Every believer in Jesus Christ is a SAINT. You do not attained to Sainthood as in the Catholic tradition.

"Paul ... apostle of Christ Jesus ..., and Sosthenes the brother, to the church of God which is in Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, the called saints, with all those who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Chrsit in every place, [who] is theirs and ours..." (1 Cor. 1:1,2)

Those sanctified in Christ Jesus as "saints" . Those who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus in every place, are also the "saints" .

A Christian is a saint. If you have believed into Christ you too are a saint.
I know that I have believed in Christ as Lord. I am a saint.

Now this letter was to "the church of God which is in Corinth", true.
It was not written to "the Roman Public Church which is in Corinth".
It was not even written to "the Jerusalem Church which is in Corinth".

It is quite alright to say that the church of God was in Corinth. The church of God was also in Jerusalem, in Antioch, in Thessalonika, in Colossi, in Laodecia, and in the many cities in Galatia.

Paul did not say Rome's Church was also established in Corinth. The church in Rome was in Rome. And the church in Corinth was in Corinth.

Since the plural word churches is mentioned in the New Testament, we know that there can be plural churches on the earth. How do we discriminate between them? How do we distinguish one church from another church ?

The answer given in the New Testament is GEOGRAPHY.
It is not race, nation, Christian worker, doctrinal understanding, street, preacher, country, form of organization, understanding of the second coming, spiritual gifts, method of baptism, particular burden of mission work or charter of activity.

Geography was the discriminator.
The church in Antioch (Acts 13:1)
The church in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2)
The church in Philadelphia (Rev. 3:7)
The church in Cenchrea (Rom. 16:1)
The church of the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16)
The church of the Thessalonians (1 Thess. 1:1)

Sometimes these local churches might be refered to as the church of God.
Sometimes these local assemblies might be addressed in this way:

"To the saints in Colossae and faithful brothers in Christ" (Col. 1:1)

"To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, the called saints ..." (Rom. 1:7)

" ... to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the overseers and deacons..." ( Phil. 1:1)

" ... to the saints who are in Ephesus" (Eph. 1:1)[/b]

The message is that Jesus Christ wanted believers to be one with other believers where they lived.

We do have four mentions of churches in someone's house. For it is history that many churches started out as meetings in someone's house. See 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Philemon 1,2; Romans 16:5.

We have letters which do not mention that they are to churches per se:

"to the sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, chosen according to the foreknowledge of God" (1 Pet. 1:1)

Where a district or region was mentioned we see the word churches (plural) because plural cities existed in those areas:

"John to the seven churches which are in Asia ..." (Rev. 1:4)

" ... the churches of Galatia ..." (1 Cor. 16:1)

" ... the churches of Judea..." ( 1 Thess. 2:14)

==========================
Each local church has its bishop, its overseer; and in the true church these leaders are in communion with each other. When widespread disputes arise, as they always do, the one Church doesn't split; the bishops get together and resolve them, as they did in Acts 15, under the leadership of Peter, and members of the one Church "hear the church" or become "as the publican or harlot." The Roman Church, since it is led by the successor to the head of the Apostles, is "first among equals" in this communion.
============================

I think you cannot find an instance of only one overseer in a local church. I think there was always a team or plurality of elders in a local church. There seems no stipulation on how many elders a local church could have.

Very large churches could have, if necessary, a larger number of elders.

I would point out the minor point, perhaps, that it was James who seems to make the final deciding verdict in the council in Acts 15 rather than Peter.

============================
It isn't up to us to sort out the elect and the damned here; we don't even know for sure which of these classes we belong to, finally. True, we are to be prudent in our associations--but that doesn't mean we consign all those apparently "outside the pale" to the flames.
================================

No one is eager to see anyone damned. And you are biblical to state that the Christians are not called to sort the false believers from the true. The parable of the wheat and the tares teaches this.

But it says the disciples should not try to sort them out in the WORLD. It does not say that they disciples must receive unbelievers into the church.

If you welcome the false Christians into your church then it becomes the world. It becomes the field of the world. And only the angels of God at the consummation of the age will separate the wheat from the tares.

Bottom line here is that the disciples do not have to enlarge the boundary of the church to include unbelievers.

==========================
Like yours, my time is limited, and I'd like to say much more than I seem to be capable of on short notice. So this, too, shall continue (God willing )....
===============================

As you can spare the time we can discuss further.