Looking back at church history, the Universal Church has failed miserably at keeping Christ’s command when it comes to all Christians. > A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:34–35, ESV2016) Jesus’ statements are clear unless one seeks to put a limit to God’s love as the lawyer responding to Jesus: > But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29, 2016) To which Jesus gave the parable of the Good Samaritan, from a group the lawyer hated, and concluded: > Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.” (Luke 10:36–37, ESV2016) In case that isn’t enough, Jesus said, > “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,… (Matt. 5:43–44, ESV2016) We as Christians need to repent for how we have treated one another and how we have treated non-Christians, especially about our past history where Christians have gone as far as burning people at the stake for disagreeing with our particular beliefs. **While this extreme isn't present today, still the lack of love often is present today. This is a stark contradiction to the New Testament.** How will people know that we follow Christ if we do not love one another? While we as individuals are not responsible for the sins before we were born, should we not be clear to all people that we acknowledge as abhorrible those sins of the past done as a group under the same name we are under today? Those sins were stopped by government mandate rather than repentance. Some forms of fascism would like to bring some of these sins back.

In the old testament days, God asked Moses to construct a place for Him to reside. > Exodus 25:8 (NKJV) > And let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them But in New testament, We read that our own body is the Temple of Holy Spirit. We read it in a number of places when Paul writes to the Corinthians, > 1 Corinthians 6:19 (NKJV) > Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? > > 1 Corinthians 3:17 (NIV) > If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple. > > 1 Corinthians 6:19 (NIV) > Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; > > 2 Corinthians-6:16 > For you are the temple of the living God However in Hebrews we have Assembly should not be forsaken. > Hebrews 10:25 (NKJV) > ..not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching. If our body is the Church, What is the place when we gather on the Sabbath day, as we call it too as Church? Is that just an assembly? Is that just enough to keep our body Holy and ignore the gathering? If God lives in the Church, our Body, Is the congregation is needed?

Pope Francis, in his [recent interview](http://www.americamagazine.org/pope-interview) , uses a very common metaphor for the church: >“I see clearly,” the pope continues, “that the thing the church needs most today is the ability to heal wounds and to warm the hearts of the faithful; it needs nearness, proximity. I see the church as a field hospital after battle. It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars! You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else. Heal the wounds, heal the wounds.... And you have to start from the ground up I've heard this, and even preached this, but I'm realizing that I don't really know where its Biblical basis comes from. What is the biblical justification for understanding the church as a place where believers are supposed to be emotionally healed?

An argument to be the Universal Church (made by any organisation) might be the argument of continuity and antiquity, that an organisation can trace its existence back to antiquity such that it can trace a continuous presence in the world back to the time of the Apostles. Laying that argument aside, does the present day Church of Rome have any claim or argument to make that it can be genuinely called 'The Body of Christ'?

I wish to follow Plato's belief of the forms and find other's who do so. Erm, question is, in Christianity is that actually a 'thing'? CS Lewis followed Plato. Peter Kreeft does...so Christians CAN but, well, how to know if you're among those who support it and can talk freely? To clarify, the Platonist belief I am mostly interested in is the idea that everything has a heavenly archaetype that is more perfect than it, and that a bad thing made bad by being (to whatever degree) far away from its perfect, ideal form.

I just read a wiki page on Jehovah's witnesses, visited their official website, and was quite surprised that in the list of their believes there is a striking absence of the definition (or at least description) of their concept of the Church. According to what I can see at the moment, they are only using the word "church" or plural "churches" in reference to the numerous religious groups in the main-stream Christianity (which they consider all to be in apostasy), while they themselves prefer to speak about the Kingdom, rather than the Church. Is it a result of their special translation of the Bible (in which many words were translated quite differently from the way it is done in the majority of Bible translations, for example, in many places the word that is translated in other translations as "fellowship" in their translation is rendered as "sharing") or am I simply missing out on something here? What's their concept of the Church? What's their teaching on the Church? When did it start? How long has it been around? Has it always existed since it was started or, perhaps, it was over at some time and then re-stated again?

Even though Luther found great abuses in the Church of his time, there is the clear idea in the Bible that the Church is one, Jesus even prays that his followers be in unity. ("I pray that they will all be one [...] " John 17:21) So how did Luther justify separating from Rome?

From my reading of the Bible, I have come to understand that unity among Christians is a good thing. 1 Corinthians 1:10-13 > Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? Psalm 133:1 > Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity! These, and other passages of scripture, seem to emphasize the importance of Christian unity and love while de-emphasizing the importance of distinctions. In light of these passages, how do Christians justify separating themselves into so many different denominations? Are there any Biblical justifications given for why having such division is preferred over unity?

I know there are a lot of non-biblical arguments for the separation of church and state . Some Christians also support it on biblical grounds, but I've never looked into the matter myself. Which passages of the Bible support the idea?

In the wider hope/inclusivist theological framework, very simply put, people who have not heard the Gospel are not necessarily lost and destined for hell. Given that understanding, why does the Church exist and why has it lasted as long as it has? For example, one commonly stated purpose of the church is to evangelize the lost. But is that actually necessary in a wider hope/inclusive framework? ([see related question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/41420/21576)) If not, then what is the purpose? Is the purpose that God is waiting to bring a certain number of people to salvation? That doesn't seem to follow either, since he could have simply saved more people before the coming of Christ, or done a mass conversion the day of resurrection and then immediately enter into the next age. Given the amount of suffering that has gone on for the last 2,000 years, it seems like God would need a good reason to allow the church age to continue the way it has. But I don't see such a reason. What do wider hope/inclusive theologians say about this? To them, what is the purpose of the church and why has the church age lasted so long?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox churches do not so that leaves the Protestants. By Protestant, I mean the 'mainstream' Protestant denominations, with minimal (if any) reference to the more obscure sects. This is because I think the term 'Protestant' belongs to those who accept a handful of certain beliefs (trinity, faith-centered outlook, etc) that are often not present in the more rare denominations. Do any Protestant denominations (not Latter Day Saints themselves) believe that Mormonism is an acceptable permutation of the "true faith" or whatever the essence of Christianity is or do they only respect their right to self-identify as whatever they want? I am not interested in potential opinions of individual Protestant believers.

[I recently did some study](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/13867/how-did-augustine-of-hippo-feel-about-jeromes-latin-translation-of-the-bible-t) on the fact that Augustine objected to Jerome translating the OT into Latin from the Hebrew instead of the Greek because there were significant differences in the texts. Augustine argued that the Greek versions were already wide spread and the differences might cause fracture between the Latin and Greek churches. He therefore, urged Jerome to only translate from the Greek. Clearly Augustine thought it was vitally important that the Church remain unified even at the cost of the exactness of Scripture. I know that Augustine is highly esteemed in the Catholic Church and I wonder if the Roman Catholic Church officially takes a position like this. If not then are there historical events that indicate an implied position like this (other then this particular one)? Or from the reverse perspective, is there an official position and/or historical events that indicate the Scripture is more valued than unity? *** *An anecdote for further explanation* Years ago while talking to a priest he told me that he believed that many Protestants would return to the Catholic Church if they would read Augustine's writings and take it to heart. I think this shows, at least in his mind, how much the RCC esteems Augustine.

Many Christians view the historical nation of Israel that we read about in the Old Testament as a Divinely designed type of the Church, and their inheritance in the Promised Land as a Divinely designed type of the New Earth (commonly called "heaven"). My question is: Assuming this typology is correct (i.e. Divinely intended), **what is the significance of there being 12 tribes, each with their own region of the Promised Land?** (For example, does this suggest each church will have its own domain in the New Earth, or does it speak more generally to the acceptability of diversity within the Church, or something else?) I'm looking for standard views, not personal ideas, so a survey of the most prominent views (2-3 maybe) would be most helpful.

In numerous places in the New Testament the church is called the "body of Christ." Is this merely a metaphor for the church's role or is it related to the doctrine of the incarnation? I suspect it is merely a metaphor but, even so, may shed some light on the incarnation, but I don't know how. A little help would be nice.

Assuming that the Bride in the book of Revelation is talking about the church, then who are the invited in this verse? >Then the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!” And he added, “These are the true words of God.” (Revelation 19:9) If we are the Bride, I imagine we can't be the invited. If we are the invited, then we can't be the bride. Or do I misunderstand the language?

Are Israel and the Church two different kingdoms? Israel - [Psalm 114:2](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+114%3A2&version=RSVCE) Church - [Matthew 16:18-19](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16%3A18-19&version=RSVCE) I am asking this question because a Catholic friend of mine insists that there is one kingdom which is the church and that means that Israel was replaced by the church.There is no more the nation Israel but only the church. God is done with Israel since the inception of the church. I want to know the view of Protestants regarding this.

I'm interested in people who say "I'm a Christian, but I don't go to church." I understand the sentiment - it really fits in well with the "spiritual, but not religious" Zeitgeist, and it seems to often coincide with a dislike of "hypocrites in the church." Jesus clearly inveighed vehemently against the Pharisees and all who would put on a show, but I'm trying to figure out what Jesus or any of the Biblical writers would have thought of the person who doesn't show up at all. In making the case against a non-churched Christianity, I would point to: - "Wherever two or more are gathered in my name" - The fact that the vast majority of the NT is addressed to churches and not inviduals - The fact that the OT seems to also simply assume corporate worship. I could keep going on, but I'm interested in understanding the opposite view. What scriptural or traditional evidence could one muster to make the case for an idiosyncratic Christianity? (Etymologically, the word "idiot" actually comes from "one who refuses to join the greater body") In other words, how would the idiosyncratic believer claim he's a Christian?

Scripture, especially in the Old Testament, goes into great detail about the specific ways of doing certain worship-related things. For example, The ordination of Aaron is a highly ritualized procedure. The sacrifices are each a little different and are laid out as detailed rituals performed by priest and worshiper. Even the camp around the tabernacle was highly organized and only set out when the trumpets were blown a certain way. Given the ceremonial aspect of all the rituals laid out in the Sinaitic law, the specific guidelines for priests and sacrifices, and the ceremonial and symbolic nature of communion and baptism, is there any biblical basis for rejecting ceremony and ritual? In the worship service, this would be a question for non-liturgical churches. For things like weddings and the like, please give biblical support for why the ceremony or ritual of the wedding service itself would be considered unnecessary.

In the last several years, I've noticed a trend of people who reject the label "Christian," and instead prefer to use terms like "Christ follower" or "follower of Jesus." (Not to be confused with people who just follow the jesus tag on SE). What is the impetus behind this relabelling, and is there historical or scriptural justification for this?

While perusing the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) website I came across this question . I fully understand what the word *catholic* by itself means. Orthodox Christians (like many liturgical Protestant denominations) recite the Creed with the understanding that the phrase "one, holy, *catholic*, and apostolic Church" emphasizes the word *catholic* with a general meaning, whereas the Catholic Church obviously implies that the word *Catholic* is more specific. From the website: > Orthodox Christians understand the word “catholic” word to mean > “whole, complete, lacking in nothing.” Hence, when we say “one, holy, > catholic, and apostolic Church,” we mean that the one, holy, and > apostolic Church is “whole, complete, and lacking in nothing.” The > word “catholic” with a small “c” has nothing whatsoever to do with > Roman “Catholic” with a capital “C”. This explanation makes sense to me in all aspects except one - the writings of the early Church Fathers. See CATHOLIC There are many early writings, both East and West, that are very clear and direct about the Catholic Church being named the Catholic Church with a capital "C." For example: > "See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the > Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also > reverence the deacons, as those that carry out[through their office] > the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the > Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, > which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has > entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the > multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he > has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the > multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, > there is the Catholic Church." *Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the > Smyrneans, 8:2(A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89* How do Orthodox Bishops and theologians view these specific and direct Patristic quotes in light of the Orthodox definition of the word "catholic?"