Has there ALWAYS been a true church?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Does this not teach that in world there are sons of God and also sons of the wicked one, and that the wicked will be cast out and burned but the righteous will inherit the kingdom? How can this be teaching "the Lord will have no identifiable ekklesia until Judgement Day"? Seems quite a stretch to get that from the text.

Christ's very point was that we can't separate the wheat from the tares because they grow together. In other words, in any given body there will be false believers and true believers. Even within churches affiliated with mainstream Apostolic organizations we have to keep in mind, not every member is a true believer. And if that can be said of nearly any congregation... we can't truly differentiate all the true believers from all the false believers.

Paul wrote to a definite assembly and says there are divisions and factions (heresies) among them. Nevertheless it cannot be denied he was speaking to a definite local apostolic assembly of believers.

True, but we also realize that churches today are not much different than churches then. Thus, we should expect that a degree of false teaching exists within every congregation.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

When I think of the "true church" it includes having the same truth as the apostles taught.

14These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: 15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 1 Tim 3:14-15

The CHURCH is the pillar and ground of THE TRUTH.

That's why the TRUE CHURCH is hard to find.

Even among the first generation of churches there were differences of administration and debates relating to law and grace and other doctrines. We assume that we know exactly what the Apostles taught, but the truth is, we don't. I there isn't any evidence that the first century church tithed, met in large buildings, had career pastors, entangled themselves with licensing or contract with Rome, had choirs, had Bible colleges, had any other ordinances beyond baptism and the Lord's supper, and the list could go on.

While I believe that the modern movement that claims Apostolic doctrine is the closest to what the Apostles taught... I don't believe we're entirely out of the woods yet. I have posted a link to a fellowship that I think reflects the closest I've seen to true Apostolic teaching:

The Ekklesia of Jesus Christ
http://eojc.org/

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So do most of you folks hold to a Restorationist" view of church history?

Meaning the church lost its way long ago and God has been restoring truth to the church with each revival/reformation? Culminating so far in the oneness pentecostal movement (but not stopping there of course)?

Yes, that's what I believe.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Even among the first generation of churches there were differences of administration and debates relating to law and grace and other doctrines. We assume that we know exactly what the Apostles taught, but the truth is, we don't. I there isn't any evidence that the first century church tithed, met in large buildings, had career pastors, entangled themselves with licensing or contract with Rome, had choirs, had Bible colleges, had any other ordinances beyond baptism and the Lord's supper, and the list could go on.

So true. The things many claim are apostolic traditions are really stemming straight from the Catholics, and certainly represent little of what we can find in the book of Acts or in any of the apostles writings.

Originally Posted by Aquila

While I believe that the modern movement that claims Apostolic doctrine is the closest to what the Apostles taught... I don't believe we're entirely out of the woods yet. I have posted a link to a fellowship that I think reflects the closest I've seen to true Apostolic teaching:

The Ekklesia of Jesus Christ
http://eojc.org/

Do you know if this group meets together, or are they just an online group? I could find nothing on the website as to where this group meets? It sounds very interesting.

[Lafon]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Paul wrote to a definite assembly and says there are divisions and factions (heresies) among them. Nevertheless it cannot be denied he was speaking to a definite local apostolic assembly of believers.

Should one employ your process of thinking about something in a logical way in order to form a conclusion or judgment when reading the scriptures, then why not rip out Paul's entire letters from the New Testament?

Were not each of them addressed to specific assemblies or individuals?

According to Paul's explicitly statement of II Timothy 3:16-17, KJV, did he not state that ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD, AND IS PROFITABLE FOR DOCTRINE, FOR REPROOF, FOR CORRECTION, FOR INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS: THAT THE MAN OF GOD MAY BE PERFECT, THOROUGHLY FURNISHED UNTO ALL GOOD WORKS?

Your statements reminds me of one who states they would rather believe, and repeat the words of Jesus that are written in Matthew 28:19 when baptizing another, than those which Peter commanded as recorded in Acts 2:238.

Just saying ...

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Lafon

Should one employ your process of thinking about something in a logical way in order to form a conclusion or judgment when reading the scriptures, then why not rip out Paul's entire letters from the New Testament?

Were not each of them addressed to specific assemblies or individuals?

According to Paul's explicitly statement of II Timothy 3:16-17, KJV, did he not state that ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD, AND IS PROFITABLE FOR DOCTRINE, FOR REPROOF, FOR CORRECTION, FOR INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS: THAT THE MAN OF GOD MAY BE PERFECT, THOROUGHLY FURNISHED UNTO ALL GOOD WORKS?

Your statements reminds me of one who states they would rather believe, and repeat the words of Jesus that are written in Matthew 28:19 when baptizing another, than those which Peter commanded as recorded in Acts 2:238.

Just saying ...

You aren't making any sense. I am saying Paul wrote to a definite local apostolic assembly, THEREFORE what he said about "the church" cannot be construed to mean there is no such thing as a definite local apostolic assembly.

It seems to me that because of the belief in a universal ("catholic" in greek!) invisible "church" which is not an actual ekklesia, many folks have a hard time even grasping the idea of the ekklesia of God being a definite local assembly. Which makes communication difficult as terms are given different meanings. Much like when Jehovah's so-called "Witnesses" claim WE are wrong because the catholics invented the Trinity, or when trinitarians argue against us by making a case against Arianism.

As for your comment regarding baptismal formulas I think you've made a huge non-sequitur in regard to my questions on the church.

Keep in mind everyone, I'm not trying to prove a particular point. I am trying to discover the truth about the subject so I will naturally probe every angle relentlessly until satisfied all possibilities have been covered.

[Michael The Disciple]

Kept By The word

Do you know if this group meets together, or are they just an online group? I could find nothing on the website as to where this group meets? It sounds very interesting.

I was thinking the same thing.

[Esaias]

It looks like it is one guy trying to get a network of house churches and families together.

[Esaias]

Last post from march 2013 so its probably an abandoned website.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Esaias

It looks like it is one guy trying to get a network of house churches and families together.

It was a worthy attempt.