My friend Warner commented toward the original post and I’d like to address some of what he said here. Please do not fail to read the end of the post.

What is the difference of the word Church and church? As the blog above is written with John MacArthur’s point of contention being the point of reference, one denotes the different denominations of Christian religions and the other denotes to the entire world of people who believe and call themselves Christian. This article is trying to establish a link that a person who associates their Christianity inside their Church (big “C”) is somehow inferior to an individual that associates their Christianity outside of any organized church; but instead associates with the mystical body of Christ that calls itself “the church” (little “C” ).

The only part I culled from MacArthur’s post was the quoted text, for clarification. MacArthur even states that the man’s point contains too much truth to be dismissed lightly. I was approaching it from my own perspective, wherein I have met and seen far too many people who associate their faith with a brick and mortar structure. Faith comes from the heart and is exercised from the heart. Where it is exercised is a moot point, and that was what I meant to convey.

So what is the subject? The subject matter is does somebody who attends a Church (building) and allows that Church’s Denomination to interpret Scripture to them is in someway different or an inferior form of Christianity (if not Christianity at all) to an individual that somehow feels that because he has a relationship with Christ on a personal level is capable by themselves of reading the Scripture and interpreting Scripture for themselves, with the belief that the Holy Spirit will guide them from error on their understanding of the Word of God.

There are those whose theology states that the Holy Spirit guides us to understand the word of God, and there are those whose theology is that there is an authoritative source which interprets the word of God. I fall into the former group. The problem with the latter group’s position is that if you proclaim that individual interpretation of scripture is a flawed process because it requires individual discernment, your argument fails by the same method of judgment. After all, you are individually discerning that…
A) There is an authoritative source, and
B) Others who discern differently than you are wrong because you discern them to be

There is no perfection here on earth. Believers interpret the Bible differently and this has led to strife amongst the faithful throughout our history. That’s just the way it is. We remain flawed, despite being redeemed, so there will always be disagreements, and this can be about Scripture as well as politics, morals, social norms and so on. One of my largest disagreements with the Catholic Church is their teaching in a universal agreement amongst the early fathers on certain doctrinal issues. I have read many early fathers and one thing is clear: there is no universal agreement on any topic. Catholic theologians will cite, for example, Aquinas, Cyrus and Basil on one matter, but omit those same men on another matter. If one takes the time to read the works of many of the early fathers one finds that some of the same men who are cited as supporters of one matter of dogma were not in agreement on another matter of dogma. One man has taken pains to make a list of what early fathers stated on a host of positions, and the list makes it clear that there is no universal agreement.

Scripture shows us a completely different point of view on this matter with great clarity. From the beginning of the ministry of Christ, Christ chose 12 Apostles to continue the spreading of His Gospel after His death and resurrection. And the Apostles were promised the Holy Spirit by Christ after His death to guide them in the truth (Acts 1:1-5). When you look into Scripture you see from the beginning that after Christ elected the 12 Apostles (which were hand picked by Christ) he clearly put Peter in charge of what would become the church (body of Christ) (Matthew 16:13-20). And in John Chapter 21 verse 15-17 we see that Christ put Peter in charge of the deposit of knowledge that would be Christ’s Gospel when he told Peter to Feed Christ’s Sheep and tend Christ’s Lambs (which the difference in the sheep and lambs was that one was the people who would accept Christ’s message and the other were those that would accept Christ’s message; but would also preach and lead the brick and mortar churches and the congregation with in those churches). We also see that the apostles after His death and resurrection also put great importance to the authority of those individuals who would interpret and spread Christ’s Gospel when they chose Judas’s replacement by only those individual disciples that had walked and talked and were taught by Christ (Acts 1:15-26) ,this is evident of the importance that the Apostles placed on the churches and those leading and interpreting Scripture in those churches that within contained the Body of Christ. In Acts 1:17 we see that Scripture was fulfilled and that their was a ministry to which to be elected to.

I do not agree with the belief of Petrine primacy. In fact, no less than Augustine said this about Peter’s confession:

“In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.” (The Retractions, 1:20:1)

Origen, in his commentary on Matthew, said this:

But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My church’? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? For in this place these words seem to be addressed as to Peter only, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,’ etc; but in the Gospel of John the Saviour having given the Holy Spirit unto the disciples by breathing upon them said, ‘Receive ye the Holy Spirit,’ etc….And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was.” (Commentary on Matthew, 12:10-11)

And Cyprian stated:

“For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.” – The Seventh Council of Carthage.

The Catholic Church teaches that its authoritative position is based upon scripture, sacred tradition and the Magisterium. It is within sacred tradition that the universal agreement of church fathers is claimed. While I have only chosen to quote three, there are many other sources which dispute Petrine primacy. Thus, there is not universal agreement amongst the fathers and a supportive leg of the Church’s claim of authority is lost. If the early fathers did not all agree that the church was founded upon Peter, and that Peter had primacy over the other apostles, then there is no traditional support for such a position. The Magisterium can rule that Petrine primacy is true, but that body’s claim to its own authority rests in sacred tradition and the scriptures, and if there is no universal traditional support for Petrine primacy then the Magisterium itself loses half of its supportive claim to exist as an authoritative voice. Thus we are left with scripture, and I interpret the proof texts used to illustrate Petrine primacy as Augustine and Origen did, and a host of others as well.

Another matter to consider is that it was vital that replacements of the apostles had actually heard the living Christ speak, and followed him, and only those who had done alike were in a position to select said replacements. Further, Paul was not selected by the apostles to become an apostle; Paul was selected by Christ Himself. And the other apostles viewed Paul as being one of their own. In fact, in the second chapter of Galatians Paul even rebuked Peter for being in error.

While reading Sacred Scripture you can see that there is further evidence that a church was needed with duly elect Elders and Presbyters to correctly interpret Scripture for the “masses of people” in Acts 8:26-40 when Phillip meets a Eunuch who is reading Sacred Scripture (apparently saved because he was reading the word of God); but could not understand what The Word meant. When asked by Phillip if he understood, the Eunuch replied “how can I unless some one instructs me?”

The eunuch was Egyptian and was reading a portion of the book of Isaiah. That he was merely reading the oracles of God doesn’t mean he was saved. Any single portion of scripture can only be understood in its immediate context, without the whole of scripture to illustrate it. For example, Isaiah gave a prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem and to a virgin. It is only once Jesus is born that we find that prophecy fulfilled. If the eunuch had been reading that portion of Isaiah he would not immediately know that Jesus fulfilled that prophecy, and as the New Testament had not yet been written at that moment, it was required that someone like Phillip explain it to him.

There are many other passages in Scripture that point to the leadership role of Peter and his Apostles to the Presbyters and Elders on down to the Church (as in brick and mortar buildings )and it’s authority to lead it’s flock to Christ and to teach Christ that it would take a book of it’s own to list them all here. If a brick and mortar church is truly being lead by a person dully elected by Christ and the doctrines of that particular church hold firm and true to the Scripture, then a person was to believe in the saving power of that church would indeed find his salvation inside of that church as that church would teach and lead that person to Christ.

If early fathers, councils or other such sources disputed that an institutional Church was to select the leaders of every brick and mortar Church, then once again a supportive authority cannot be claimed. The Council of Trent condemned any who would say that Church leaders were to be appointed by laymen, yet Trent would be condemning The Didache, which states:

“Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Despise them not therefore, for they are your honoured ones, together with the prophets and teachers.” (15)

Trent would also condemn Cyprian:

“On which account a people obedient to the Lord’s precepts, and fearing God, ought to separate themselves from a sinful prelate, and not to associate themselves with the sacrifices of a sacrilegious priest, especially since they themselves have the power either of choosing worthy priests, or of rejecting unworthy ones….” (67:3, 67:5)

And Trent would condemn Clement of Rome:

“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those ministers already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry.” (First Clement, 44)

I do not place my faith in the building where I worship, my pastor or the deacons who oversee the business of the congregation. My faith is in Christ, for it is Him Who saved me, not my Church. Even the apostles erred, so if their errors condemned people to hell then the gates of Hell did indeed prevail against the Church, for Satan stole souls away from the Christ. This is why I believe that it was Peter’s confession of faith that is the founding principle of the universal church; which is the variety of people who profess the same faith across the globe. Against that faith Hell shall not prevail, for Jesus will not allow any who belong to Him to be stolen away (John 6:36-40).

PS. You have a wonderful website and a gift to us all of the insight you have on a great variety of subjects. Once again an awesome place you have here. We agree on much that I find here in the site and I’m sure I’ll be posting again on another topic.

God Bless again….

Warner, thank you so much for the kind words. I do count you as a brother and I love you in Christ. I hope, therefore, that what I have written here is not received harshly by you. The written medium cannot convey a softly spoken word, or a smile. None of what I have written is offered in any stern way. It is too bad we live so far apart because this could be an earnest conversation shared on a porch, over tall glasses of lemonade. We disagree on certain matters, but that is okay. We agree that Jesus is Lord, that He lives in our hearts and as I once said to you before, if your heart beats for Jesus then you are my brother. I try to avoid conflicts in matters of faith because they tend mostly to be unfruitful. That is often because one of the parties involved, or both, are striving to win the argument. That is not my intention here, nor do I believe it is yours. Please come back and comment anywhere here. I welcome your insight as well. And God bless you as well.