Christian Unity?

[titanxt]

Fishinfamily,

Very good question! What would that look like? I am guessing it would continue to be a mess because man is involved. We would continue to argue over infant vs. adult baptism, are the elements of communion symbolic or the actual body and blood of Christ, can souls be symbolically baptized after death, is there purgatory, can the individual read and understand the Bible, is the Holy Spirit a separate person, and on and on… And please do not read that as a Catholic vs Protestant conflict - those issues above span many denominations. You would also have the pseudo-christain cults slipping in muddying up the waters with false teachings.

On the glorious day of Christ’s triumphant return, HE will unify HIS body of believers. Jesus will connect all of the dots and make a beautiful and concise picture of the truth that we cannot see today. There is nothing we can do on our own except accepting Jesus as our Savior and the only one who can make sense of our chaotic and sinful lives and calm our fears of what we do not understand. For me, I have trouble with the word “church” and tend to use “body of believers.” The word “church” has taken on a meaning, for me, that illustrates what we have defined it to be.

[Jeff La]

I have always said that the first question when we get to heaven is NOT going to be "are you _______" (insert Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran etc) There was no said denominations in Christ's day. I am Catholic but do not believe in any ONE religion. I do believe in one church, Christ's Church. John 3:16 says it all.

I am Catholic and I believe as you. Being of a certain religion will not guarantee you to be save, Belief in John 3:16 will. I believe God will see me as a believer and not as a member of a certain religion.

[bassfishinglawyer]

I try to pray for unity for the Church daily. I am not sure what it looks like - and if it will ever happen. But I pray for us to get closer and closer to it every day.

[digthemup]

so what should we all become? What would Unity look like?

Would we all be Christians and everyone do what is right in their own eyes?

I pray that what it would look like it would be as it was in the beginning of Christianity during the days of Peter and Paul, since there was no multiple religions, however, since things have been deeply mutated from those days, there will still be dissension among human opinions. Since we do have the bible to guide us all in the teachings and word of Christ, I would hope and pray that it would not be as chaotic as you imagine.

[fishinFamily]

I agree that having a church similar to when Peter and Paul were alive would be wonderful. (Maybe without all the martyrs and persecution though? I may - through the grace of God - be strong enough to suffer and die for my faith, but I pray none of us has to!)

But in the time of Peter and Paul everyone in the church didn’t always see eye to eye…. In Acts 15 we see how dispute resolution was discussed and deferred to the hierarchy of the apostles and presbyters. The council of Jerusalem was a pre-ecumenical council and was the basis for future councils.

[digthemup]

I agree that having a church similar to when Peter and Paul were alive would be wonderful. (Maybe without all the martyrs and persecution though? I may - through the grace of God - be strong enough to suffer and die for my faith, but I pray none of us has to!)

But in the time of Peter and Paul everyone in the church didn’t always see eye to eye…. In Acts 15 we see how dispute resolution was discussed and deferred to the hierarchy of the apostles and presbyters. The council of Jerusalem was a pre-ecumenical council and was the basis for future councils.

I agree that in Acts and some of the epistles that Paul wrote we find that there was some conflict, which most of it may have been started by the Jews trying to retain power and their ways of the imposed "laws".
I am sure you may recall them trying to impose circumcision on to the gentiles that converted, yet later was found to be unnecessary as Paul expanded all the way to Rome. I believe that when we use the Scriptures to resolve our differences in perception and opinions we allow God's word to shine the light on the truth giving the Holy Spirit the ability to guide us as Christ instructs by His teachings and commandments.

Remember, God's truth is our shield and buckler as He teaches us in Psalm 91, and I believe that we need to look at His word to grant us peace, even when we may perceive that others may be wrong.
May the mighty word of God and Christ always guide you and yours,
Frank

[fishinFamily]

I agree that in Acts and some of the epistles that Paul wrote we find that there was some conflict, which most of it may have been started by the Jews trying to retain power and their ways of the imposed "laws".
I am sure you may recall them trying to impose circumcision on to the gentiles that converted, yet later was found to be unnecessary as Paul expanded all the way to Rome. I believe that when we use the Scriptures to resolve our differences in perception and opinions we allow God's word to shine the light on the truth giving the Holy Spirit the ability to guide us as Christ instructs by His teachings and commandments.

Remember, God's truth is our shield and buckler as He teaches us in Psalm 91, and I believe that we need to look at His word to grant us peace, even when we may perceive that others may be wrong.
May the mighty word of God and Christ always guide you and yours,
Frank

Frank first let me thank you because I love this discussion. I truly feel like i am learning from this forum, and even though you and i do have some differences in approach to our faith I can tell that you love Jesus and the scriptures and I hope you see I do too.

I do realize that the dispute in Acts 15 was about circumcising. But what was the scriptural basis for that decision? At the time of Acts, the New Testament wasn’t written. If they likely would have relied on only scripture, the OT, they would have come to the conclusion that circumcising was necessary for salvation.

I love and cherish the word of God. I read the Bible regularly. But I also read Ignatius of Antioch, Augustine, and other Church fathers. I read some of the Apologists, and I read the Catechism. In addition I cherish the Eucharist because as Jesus himself said (John 6:53) “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.”

[fishinFamily]

I have always said that the first question when we get to heaven is NOT going to be "are you _______" (insert Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran etc) There was no said denominations in Christ's day. I am Catholic but do not believe in any ONE religion. I do believe in one church, Christ's Church. John 3:16 says it all.

Thank you for your reply. I think John 3:16 is beautiful, and I certainly agree that we are only justified through Jesus. But, I’m not sure belief in Jesus as the son of God alone is sufficient. After all, even demons (Legion) recognize Jesus as the son of God (Mark 5:7)

[KT978]

You won't see it until the new heaven and new earth I don't think. That would almost be a "religious utopia". The big reason I say that is there is a huge Authority of Scripture issue in the church today. Look at the 7 churches in Revelation, some good, some ok, and some totally off. There are what I refer to as secondary issues which we could discuss and still worship together. Then there are primary issues which are stated very clear that for myself I would not budge on. For myself primary issues would include such things as salvation, the Trinity, the inerrancy of scripture, what is right and what is wrong, etc. A secondary issue would be something like the beginning of genesis 6. I would not have an issue defending my beliefs on the beginning of Gen.6 but I would not let that be a deciding factor for me to joining someone that had different beliefs on those few verses. The term Christian is so loosely used these days. Our doctrines should come from the Word and when that is no longer the case then it seems someone is making up there own god, there own morals, there own standard.

[digthemup]

Frank first let me thank you because I love this discussion. I truly feel like i am learning from this forum, and even though you and i do have some differences in approach to our faith I can tell that you love Jesus and the scriptures and I hope you see I do too.

I do realize that the dispute in Acts 15 was about circumcising. But what was the scriptural basis for that decision? At the time of Acts, the New Testament wasn’t written. If they likely would have relied on only scripture, the OT, they would have come to the conclusion that circumcising was necessary for salvation.

I love and cherish the word of God. I read the Bible regularly. But I also read Ignatius of Antioch, Augustine, and other Church fathers. I read some of the Apologists, and I read the Catechism. In addition I cherish the Eucharist because as Jesus himself said (John 6:53) “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.”

FishinFamily,
Because the Jews wanted to continue and retain the Laws, their argument was that circumcision was necessary due to Abraham's covenant, however, Christ had come and risen giving us a new covenant by His blood at the cross. Jesus made it clear that He is the only way to salvation, John 14:6, and the circumcision we were to receive would be spiritual by being spiritually born again as He explains to Nicodemus.

In John 6:53, in my opinion, I believe that Jesus was describing His Passion at the cross, since He knew that eating of human flesh and drinking of any blood would be against God's will and the commandments about such things given in Leviticus, especially the blood, which God considered it the life of any living being. In the last supper, Jesus makes it clear that he wishes us to repeat that which He shared with the apostles in the upper room in remembrance of Him giving His body and blood for our redemption and salvation giving us eternal life.
I attended catholic schooling up to HS, and I am aware of the traditional believe they hold on to about the eucharist, however, when we examine God's word and His commandments given about eating of human flesh and any type of blood, I conclude that Jesus would have been contrary to the Father's words had He intended to be literal and not a representation of His Passion and His teachings, hence, I would suggest that you read the entire chapter of John 6 for further clarification.

[digthemup]

You won't see it until the new heaven and new earth I don't think. That would almost be a "religious utopia". The big reason I say that is there is a huge Authority of Scripture issue in the church today. Look at the 7 churches in Revelation, some good, some ok, and some totally off. There are what I refer to as secondary issues which we could discuss and still worship together. Then there are primary issues which are stated very clear that for myself I would not budge on. For myself primary issues would include such things as salvation, the Trinity, the inerrancy of scripture, what is right and what is wrong, etc. A secondary issue would be something like the beginning of genesis 6. I would not have an issue defending my beliefs on the beginning of Gen.6 but I would not let that be a deciding factor for me to joining someone that had different beliefs on those few verses. The term Christian is so loosely used these days. Our doctrines should come from the Word and when that is no longer the case then it seems someone is making up there own god, there own morals, there own standard.

Some very good observations in shining the light on some of the traditional and theocratical differences that keep us apart by using the 7 churches as an example, which only God will be able to resolve in the new Heaven and new earth when all the nations will come to worship Him and be healed.

[digthemup]

............... I certainly agree that we are only justified through Jesus. But, I’m not sure belief in Jesus as the son of God alone is sufficient. ......................

I am not trying to put you on the spot, but trying to understand your opinion better, could you please tell us your understanding of Jesus's words in John 14:6?
Thank you so very much,
Frank

[fishinFamily]

I am not trying to put you on the spot, but trying to understand your opinion better, could you please tell us your understanding of Jesus's words in John 14:6?
Thank you so very much,
Frank

Frank - I don’t feel put on the spot at all. I think it is good and pleasing to God that we share conversations like this. I always try to learn more that can bring me closer to God.

John 14:6 is very clear. No one can come to the father except through Jesus. I concede that. My statement that you put in bold however is that not everyone who believes in Jesus will be saved. Like I stated - in Mark 5:7 a demon confesses that Jesus is the son of God. I don’t believe Legion will be saved.

Does that make sense? Do you agree with that? If not can you explain Matthew 7:21?

[fishinFamily]

FishinFamily,
Because the Jews wanted to continue and retain the Laws, their argument was that circumcision was necessary due to Abraham's covenant, however, Christ had come and risen giving us a new covenant by His blood at the cross. Jesus made it clear that He is the only way to salvation, John 14:6, and the circumcision we were to receive would be spiritual by being spiritually born again as He explains to Nicodemus.

In John 6:53, in my opinion, I believe that Jesus was describing His Passion at the cross, since He knew that eating of human flesh and drinking of any blood would be against God's will and the commandments about such things given in Leviticus, especially the blood, which God considered it the life of any living being. In the last supper, Jesus makes it clear that he wishes us to repeat that which He shared with the apostles in the upper room in remembrance of Him giving His body and blood for our redemption and salvation giving us eternal life.
I attended catholic schooling up to HS, and I am aware of the traditional believe they hold on to about the eucharist, however, when we examine God's word and His commandments given about eating of human flesh and any type of blood, I conclude that Jesus would have been contrary to the Father's words had He intended to be literal and not a representation of His Passion and His teachings, hence, I would suggest that you read the entire chapter of John 6 for further clarification.

I agree with you about circumcision - and clearly they came to the correct conclusion. My point is they didn’t base that conclusion on scripture.

As for John 6. I have read it; all of it. And the rest of the book of John. And the rest of the books in the Bible.

as you stated - Jesus created a New Covenant - Levitical laws are no longer applicable. God does consider the blood to be the life of a thing. That is why he commanded his people not to consume the blood of beasts. He doesn’t want them to share in a life lesser than them. He wants all of us to share in his Divinity as “adopted” sons and daughters.

In John 6 he clearly states “my flesh is true food and my blood true drink”. Nothing symbolic about that!! In John 6:66 he loses followers because this teaching was too hard - he didn’t stop them and explain the symbolic meaning of his words.

Furthermore I think it is clear that Paul believes that communion is more than a mere symbol - 1 Corinthians 11:23-32.

[digthemup]

I agree with you about circumcision - and clearly they came to the correct conclusion. My point is they didn’t base that conclusion on scripture.

As for John 6. I have read it; all of it. And the rest of the book of John. And the rest of the books in the Bible.

as you stated - Jesus created a New Covenant - Levitical laws are no longer applicable. God does consider the blood to be the life of a thing. That is why he commanded his people not to consume the blood of beasts. He doesn’t want them to share in a life lesser than them. He wants all of us to share in his Divinity as “adopted” sons and daughters.

In John 6 he clearly states “my flesh is true food and my blood true drink”. Nothing symbolic about that!! In John 6:66 he loses followers because this teaching was too hard - he didn’t stop them and explain the symbolic meaning of his words.

Furthermore I think it is clear that Paul believes that communion is more than a mere symbol - 1 Corinthians 11:23-32.

1 Corinthians 11:23-26
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Was Jesus's body broken for us at the cross? absolutely, for flesh was torn and nails were driven into Him, and we shall remember this when we celebrate communion.
Was Christ's blood shed on the cross as an atonement of His new testament? so that our sins will be forever forgiven as far as East is from the West, absolutely, and we shall remember this when we partake of the cup at communion.
BTW, I was in no way implying that you had not previously read John 6, but to revisit it within the context of our discussion, which sometimes may give us a different view of our prospective.
The people are seeking free food, not spiritual truth. As soon as Jesus begins to explain that His miracles are only meant to teach, they lose interest. Christ will describe how material things fade away, but His real purpose is to give people eternal life.
“I am the bread of life,” Jesus tells the people. “Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.” He is offering the people himself. He is the imperishable bread that nourishes and sustains imperishable life. Jesus makes us the same offer in His New Covenant of bread and wine.

Thank you so very much for stoking the fire which burns withing me for my Lord Christ.
Frank

[digthemup]

Fishinfamily,

Very good question! What would that look like? I am guessing it would continue to be a mess because man is involved. We would continue to argue over infant vs. adult baptism, are the elements of communion symbolic or the actual body and blood of Christ, can souls be symbolically baptized after death, is there purgatory, can the individual read and understand the Bible, is the Holy Spirit a separate person, and on and on… And please do not read that as a Catholic vs Protestant conflict - those issues above span many denominations. You would also have the pseudo-christain cults slipping in muddying up the waters with false teachings.

On the glorious day of Christ’s triumphant return, HE will unify HIS body of believers. Jesus will connect all of the dots and make a beautiful and concise picture of the truth that we cannot see today. There is nothing we can do on our own except accepting Jesus as our Savior and the only one who can make sense of our chaotic and sinful lives and calm our fears of what we do not understand. For me, I have trouble with the word “church” and tend to use “body of believers.” The word “church” has taken on a meaning, for me, that illustrates what we have defined it to be.

That my brethren is a bold and powerful statement for our Lord Christ's Passion for us. Amen

[06 SB]

so what should we all become? What would Unity look like?

Would we all be Christians and everyone do what is right in their own eyes?

It is a tough question. I am familiar with Catholic, Lutheran, CoC, Methodist, Presbyterian and Mennonite. There way more similarities than differences. Like I said, I have had many conversations and there is a lot of healthy discussions but with Catholics they always bring up assimilation “back” to them.

[digthemup]

It is a tough question. I am familiar with Catholic, Lutheran, CoC, Methodist, Presbyterian and Mennonite. There way more similarities than differences. Like I said, I have had many conversations and there is a lot of healthy discussions but with Catholics they always bring up assimilation “back” to them.

Thank you for your input to this conversation, and would love to hear more of the similarities or difference, so that we may all learn more about each other.
Welcome to the forum
Frank

[drifter106]

Hi everyone, I want to preface this with the disclaimer that I am Catholic. I am particularly interested in hearing from other Christians as I’m not sure if this is something I am unique in hoping for or not . . . .

It has been in my heart for a while that it is not good that Christianity is so divided. With all of the messages in the world today that are counter to Christianity, I feel our voices would be heard more clearly if we were speaking in one voice. When I pray about this I hear the words from the Lord’s Prayer - “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” I can’t believe that there is a Catholic Heaven, a Lutheran Heaven, a Baptist Heaven, etc. that is almost ridiculous to think about. So why would we have God’s church on earth divided as such? I know there are differences - some of them big differences but there is also so much we believe in common. I often pray for the Holy Spirit to work in the hearts of Christians that we might see the common doctrine and reconcile the differences.

Does anyone else hope for Christian Unity? Does anyone else think it would be good to unite the church on earth? If so, how - through the grace of God and the intercession of the Holy Spirit could that begin to happen? Or does anyone think we are better off separated? Why? How do you think we strengthen each other separated in various denominations?

Thanks everyone. May everyone be blessed today.

The concern I have for non-Catholics is their opinion of the BVM. They chose to ignore the fact of what she represents. Yes, we Christians believe in the Trinity and that Jesus died for our sins but many are gonna miss the boat because of the arrogance and disrespect they inherently display towards the mother of God.

[drifter106]

Frank - I don’t feel put on the spot at all. I think it is good and pleasing to God that we share conversations like this. I always try to learn more that can bring me closer to God.

John 14:6 is very clear. No one can come to the father except through Jesus. I concede that. My statement that you put in bold however is that not everyone who believes in Jesus will be saved. Like I stated - in Mark 5:7 a demon confesses that Jesus is the son of God. I don’t believe Legion will be saved.

Does that make sense? Do you agree with that? If not can you explain Matthew 7:21?

Totally agree....the thing is...they won't be saved because of their own doing.