John the apostle wrote to the early church and expressed the visions which had been given to he, himself, alone, in the revelation of Jesus Christ, given by God. That revelation contained letters to seven churches which were viewed as lampstands with the Son of man seen 'in the midst'. These churches were all subject to the apostle John. *There was unity of teaching.* These churches were singular in the districts in which they existed. *There was no schism.* Many denominations today admit of differences within their numbers. Many allow of their participants following different 'ministeries' and 'leaderships'. If such a state as that seen in Revelation is not real, today, then is it a fact that the Son of man is not 'in the midst' of much of what professes to be the 'church' ? True, he is in the midst where but two, or three, are gathered in his name. Even if it is but one household within a district. Or like-minded persons meeting in a place where many 'churches' exist but none are truly naming Jesus Christ and properly identifying him. My question is adressed to Protestant Trinitarians. Does any Protestant Trinitarian gathering, anywhere, specifically profess to be gathered to the same state and condition as the seven churches addressed by John ? For if gatherings do not so profess, then by so much they are admitting that the Son of man is not 'in their midst'. --------------------------------- Edit, for clarity, regarding comment : There was, indeed, the beginnings of schism at Corinth, as you refer, in the first epistle. This was corrected by apostolic authority and was largely absent by the time the second epistle was completed. Thereafter Paul's writings and the gospel accounts, together with Peter's epistles, Hebrews, James and Jude, were widely available. So by the time John wrote there was a unity *which is very noticeable indeed* in the content of the seven missives to the seven churches. My question is, Who claims to have such a unity, right now, and who, thus, can say that the Son of man is in their midst ?

In a recently posted article on St. John Henry Newman (See: [*St. John Henry Newman's Elevation as Doctor of the Church Seen as a Gift for Our Times*](https://www.ncregister.com/news/pentin-newman-doctor-providential)) , Fr. [Ignatius] Harrison who commented on five key teachings of the Saint only briefly addresses Newman's thoughts on the importance of the laity and their role in the Church: "that the laity is not supplementary' but crucial to the very foundation of the Church, and that he wanted an informed, and well-educated laity for the Church's mission.'" QUESTION: Can anyone expand in more detail St. John Henry Newman's teaching on the importance of the laity and their role in the Catholic Church? Primary references are appreciated. Thank you.

**John 16:13**: > (KJV) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. > > (NLT) When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own but will tell you what he has heard. He will tell you about the future. I've often heard John 16:13 quoted as an argument for the various "infallibility" doctrines, be it Biblical infallibility, infallibility of the ecumenical councils, or general Church infallibility. In particular there is great emphasis placed upon the fact that the Holy Spirit will "guide you into all the truth." In fact I have heard it stated that if you believe that the Church can err, then you believe Christ was lying when he said the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to "all the truth," not "some of the truth." Yet a plain reading of that verse does not seem to require infallibility. "Guide" seems to imply a process, and one not necessarily free from error. If someone is being guided to a final destination they may still get lost along the way, perhaps even be allowed to do so. The verse just seems to be assuring us that in the end the Holy Spirit will bring us to "all the truth." So am I missing something? Is there something that has been lost in translation? Is there extra-Biblical commentary somewhere amongst the Church Fathers that more thoroughly explains the verse? I am particularly in the Catholic position, but I would also be interested in the Orthodox and Protestant interpretations as well.

Revelation 4:4 describes 24 elders seated around God’s throne, clothed in white and wearing crowns. Many commentators suggest that the number 24 may symbolize the **12 tribes of Israel** (Old Testament) and the **12 apostles** (New Testament), together representing the full redeemed people of God across both covenants. Do Christian scholars or traditions interpret the 24 elders in Revelation as symbolizing the unity of God's people — that is, 12 representing Israel and 12 representing the Church? Are there denominational views (e.g., Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox) that formally teach or reject this interpretation?

[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schism#Christianity) says that formal schismatics are those who: > knowing the true nature of the Church, have personally and deliberately committed the sin of schism. But if formal schismatics have to truly know the true nature of the Church, is it ever actually a category that can apply to people? For example, Protestants reject the authority of the Catholic Church and the Pope, and so would not be said, I would think, to know the true nature of the Church. Likewise, are the SSPX truly formal schismatics if, in their rejection of Vatican II, they believe the true nature of the church is other than that of the Catholic Church after Vatican II? If you have to know and truly believe in the true nature of the Church in order for your rejection of it to be "formal", then it seems to be that this is a largely academic category, and that there would be exceedingly few actual cases of formal schismatics.

As the gospel spread beyond Israel to the Gentile world, many began to ask important questions about God's promises to the Jewish people. In *Exodus 4:22*, God declares, *“Israel is my firstborn son,”* highlighting Israel’s special place in His redemptive plan. But with the coming of Christ and the message of salvation extended to all nations, we now see Christians referred to as adopted sons and daughters of God through faith. This raises important theological questions: Has Israel’s special status been replaced by the Church? Do Gentile believers now stand in place of Israel as God's chosen people? Or does Israel still hold a distinct role in God's unfolding story? This topic invites reflection on God's faithfulness, the unity of His promises, and how both Jews and Gentiles fit into His plan through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

From this answer it is stated "Peter, James, John (the twelve) were followers of Christ's earthly ministry to Israel (the circumcision)." and from a comment there given for clarity, "The gospels were directly to Israel regarding the coming kingdom of heaven and 'prophecy' that was revealed to Israel's prophets "since the world began" (Luke 1:70).". The answer states that, while all of the New Testament is profitable for those in the Church it is the Apostle Paul's writings that are specifically to and for the Church with the rest (especially the Gospels) specifically to and for the nation of Israel. The twelve Apostles were Christ's ministers to Israel and Paul was Christ's minister to Gentiles. The Dispensationalist view seems to be that Jesus is building His Church now and **some Jews** believe and are added to the Church. At some point the Church will be removed from earth and then **lots of Jews** will believe but they will not be part of the Church (because the Church age is over). > And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. - John 10:16 (KJV) In this passage John records Jesus saying **to the Jews** that there is one sheepfold of His sheep into which "other sheep" will be brought. The natural reading of this seems to be that Jesus' sheep are the believing Jews and the "other sheep" who are not of this fold that will be brought in are the Gentiles. This appears on the surface to be the exact opposite of dispensational thought wherein Jews believe in Jesus and are added to the Church and where there are two "sheepfolds", Israel and the Church. Parenthetic: A similar difficulty arises in Romans 11:11-24 where the wild olive branches (Gentiles) are grafted into the good olive tree (Israel) so that there will be just one olive tree. My question for Dispensationalists regarding John 10:16 is: How is the plain reading of this passage overcome?

Since God revealed the gospel to all nations through his Son for free, is any church justified to withhold certain sermons from some of its members citing *membership requirements* reasons, should any pre-recorded sermon sit behind *password protection*? Is this what Jesus urged the church to do?

Their official website is [The Society of Saint Alphonsus Marie de Liguori]( https://trcatholics.org) . They seem to be located in New Jersey, and call themselves "The Traditional Catholic Church." But I am skeptical; for example, because they also claim to be "ALPHONSIAN REDEMPTORISTS" and show lots of pictures of St. Alphonsus Liguori. However, they do not (as far as I can tell) belong to the true *Redemptorists,* which was founded by St. Alphonsus Liguori and is officially named, the *Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer.* QUESTION: Can anyone tell me who these people are? They clearly are trying to give the impression that they are Catholic, but I have my doubts. It is not clear from their website that they are in communion with the Pope. Moreover, a Google search of their address: 300 Peach Street, Hammonton, New Jersey 08037 identifies them as [*St. Mark's Episcopal church*](https://www.waze.com/live-map/directions/us/nj/hammonton/saint-marks-episcopal-church?to=place.ChIJQc-iExkowYkRjJk5jVueonk)---but I could not such an identity on their website. (Maybe the link is outdated.)

Or, in mathematical terminology, is the relationship of full communion a transitive relation ? I can easily imagine a scenario where church A is stricter in their rules for full communion than church B, but not so strict as to exclude B from full communion on those grounds. However, since B is more lenient, they have full communion with C, which is outside the bounds for church A. While that's easily imaginable, I don't know of any example of three church institutions where this is the case. Do any exist? Does communing with C create any tension in the relationship between B and A?

I'm just curious how there can be more than one truth at the same time? God came to establish a church. Not any church. The church of the first thousand years is the Eastern Orthodox church.

Recently I had a conversation with a Roman Catholic about apostolic succession and the papacy and he brought up this verse: 1 Timothy 3:15 KJV >But 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. My first understanding of this is that the pillar of truth being the church is the community of believers that come together in a spiritual sense rather than an earthly church institution. That is sound to me from what I've read from both the book of Concord and Luther's writings along with scriptural basis. Would this be the general consensus of the Lutheran doctrine for what the church is?, or am I missing something?

Sorry if I'm a bit wordy, I'm a bit new to apologetics and am trying to understand church history. This is something I struggle to understand a bit. With Catholicism, you have the Pope as a unifying force and a lot of ecumenical councils that lay out the rules of infallibility. So it's usually easy to determine if someone agrees with "Catholic theology" or not. With Lutherans and other Protestant groups, the rules are less strict, and they tend to see "the church" as more universal. But then there's Orthodox, a group that believes they are the one true church and even in some form of "no salvation outside the church." But how does the Orthodox church decide which teachings one must accept to be Orthodox? Oriental Orthodoxy accepts three councils as infallible, and I think most Orthodox accept seven. But I don't really see explicit Orthodox doctrine on which parts of these councils are infallible the way that later Catholic councils have. (The canons of the councils themselves that I've read don't use the word "infallible", and Lutherans see the councils as authoritative but below scripture.) Orthodoxy has a specific view of the trinity and a specific view on salvation that differ from Lutheranism, despite both groups generally agreeing with those councils. **So what it it that determines these Orthodox beliefs, if they don't consider anything outside 3-7 ecumenical councils and scripture to be infallible?** If Orthodox consider their view of the trinity to be fallible, why? Doesn't the Catholic view also follow the Nicene creed? As an application of my question, how does the Orthodox church decide what the "one true church" is when making statements like "no salvation outside the church"? If Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy are the same church, despite doctrinal disagreements, then what makes Eastern Orthodoxy and Lutheranism not the same church, despite many similarities? In the early church, weren't there different congregations with bishops that were considered the same church, despite having different practices? Where's the line, according to Orthodoxy?

I’ve been a follower of Christ for five years now, and as a former Muslim, I’ve learned a lot about the hypocrisy of people and how religion can sometimes be used as a tool for personal gain. There’s a question that’s been on my mind for a long time, and I feel I need to express it. If these so-called “holy fathers” are truly doing God’s work, why don’t they live and work like everyone else? They’re being paid to preach, so isn’t it essentially just a job for them? It makes me question their sincerity when they’re compensated for what is supposed to be a divine mission. Take the Pope, for example. Living in a palace, surrounded by servants, and having his hand kissed by common people doesn’t exactly convey a message of humility or authenticity. To me, it feels contradictory to the values they claim to represent.

The council of Nicea was held in A.D. 325 a few hundred years after the early church. Yet it contained church leaders from all over, and it reached a wide consensus on a number of issues. Some of these decisions seem contradictory with Protestantism, specifically the seeming appeal to bishops and the church community as a final authority. For example, the council refers to itself several times as "the great and holy Synod," implying that these decisions are binding to some extent, not just suggestions. It refers to penance, which Protestants typically don't practice. It also heavily implies that church custom ought to be followed: > It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great Synod that, in some > districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the > presbyters, whereas **neither canon nor custom permits** that they who > have no right to offer should give the Body of Christ to them that do > offer. And this also has been made known, that certain deacons now > touch the Eucharist even before the bishops. They also state: > It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the > bishops in the province which seems to appeal to church consensus in a way that seems to contradict Protestant beliefs. Together, the most clear implication seems to be that believers everywhere are bound to follow the teachings given by ecumenical councils or decisions made by a consensus of bishops. I suppose Protestants could argue that humans are capable of error and that these teachings were a modern invention, not something believed by the early church. But if that were the case, then why would bishops from *all* across the continent be able to agree on these declarations? I'm open to arguments that large swaths of the church had fallen into error by AD 325, or that this contradicts things agreed on in the early church. But I'm not sure how to make that argument. On the one hand, there's a lot here that we don't see said by Ignatius or early writers. On the other hand, I don't see Ignatius *contradicting* what's written here, and a consensus by successors of the apostles could indicate that the apostles themselves did believe these things and passed them on as tradition. Ignatius also writes : > Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop...It is not lawful > without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast That doesn't directly imply everything said at Nicea, but the similarity in what's said at Nicea and by Ignatius seems to strengthen the case that Nicea was based on tradition passed down from the apostles. Why would the tradition change so much and so broadly?

We see in Mtt 19:21( NRSVCE), the definitive answer Jesus gave to the rich young man who had come to him seeking eternal life: >Jesus said to him, ‘If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.’. Note the instructions that Jesus gives: first, sell the material possession and then give the proceeds to the poor. In case the man was asked to lease out , free of rent, his property say agricultural land to poor farmers, he would be in a position to review his decision and reclaim the property on a later date. But, selling up means that he would have no further claim on the property. No wonder the young man left sad- faced ! Many Catholic churches across the world have significant measure of real estate holdings, much of which may have been received on donation at the time of the church-construction from the then rulers and benefactors. Administrative rules and regulations of the area have come to curtail their possession to a great extent. Of course, locally constructed churches incur expenses on upkeep and salaries of staff, which they meet out of the revenue from immovable property. So, you can never expect a church administration to sell out its property and distribute the proceedings to the poor. But then, was the 'Sell up and Serve formula' that Jesus prescribed, the outcome of a stand-alone incident ? My question is: what is the significance of Jesus' formula of 'Sell up and Serve' in Matthew 19 to Church- run organisations ?

As per Acts 21:24, Paul keeps the law. If Paul keeps the law, why does he say that he is not under the law in 1 Corinthians 20-21? If he is not under the law, then why did he perform the nazirite vow in Acts 21? I am confused

On p. 115 of [*Catholic Prophecy by Yves Dupont*](https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=4444) , we find: > *Oba Prophecy.* "It will come when the Church authorities issue directives to promote a new cult, when priests are forbidden to celebrate in any other, when the higher positions in the Church are given to perjurers and hypocrites, when only the renegades are admitted to occupy those positions." QUESTION: Where may I find a reference for this "Oba Prophecy"? The above book was published in 1970. Thank you.

What is the current growth or statistics of the house church movement in the US, or the West in general? I suppose they don't exist in the UK or Europe. I have heard that this type of church model exists in China and in some poor countries due to an organic need arising from the political situation. However, to see this trend going in the West rich nations is very interesting, where they are moving away from the institutional church model. The house church model also rejects the Pastor system or a senior Pastor system in the structure of church; and they are smaller size to avoid expense of building and maintenance. Are there some government data that shows surveys of believers to give a good estimate, and how to find it? If you have other basic related information about their structure and whether certain traditional churches have condemned them as heretics, share them as well.

In **Genesis 2:2-3** we are told: > **2** And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. > **3** And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. Limiting the scope of the question — setting aside what it means that the seventh day of the week was "blessed" and "sanctified" by God — and focusing narrowly on the "longitudinal" impact of these verses, what is the biblically sound interpretation? I was able to think of three possible options here (if you can think of another, please include it in your answer): 1. the **only** day that was blessed was the actual “historical” first Sabbath (with no other Sabbaths meant to enjoy the blessing that was given to that original /first and only/ seventh day); 2. every subsequent seventh day was blessed from the original Sabbath **until** a later point in time when that blessing was **removed** or **modified** by another divine decree (e.g., transferred to another day or limited in its scope to the ethnic Jews). 3. **all** subsequent Sabbaths were blessed; What biblically based arguments do the various denominations give for their interpretation of this scripture?