I’m seeking some theological and exegetical insight regarding the use of the word “appoint” in the New Testament passages about the establishment of elders (e.g. Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). In many English translations, appoint can sound like a top-down decision made by a few leaders. However, the Greek terms involved (such as χειροτονέω and καθίστημι) seem to carry a broader sense related to recognition, commissioning, or placing someone into a role, often within a communal or ecclesial context. My question is this: Does the New Testament use of “appoint elders” necessarily imply a unilateral decision by church leaders, or does it presuppose some form of communal discernment, recognition, or confirmation by the local church? I would appreciate perspectives from biblical studies, church history, or different ecclesiological traditions.

I'm hoping someone can refer me to a graphic, flowchart or even a list of when various Christian denominations formed. For example, a biggie is the Lutheran church breaking off from the Catholic church. Or the Anglican church splitting off from the Catholic one. Will appreciate any help, thank you.

How can there be so many denominations of Christianity? Christianity is solely based on the Bible, so how can multiple faiths come from it?

I received a letter from someone in the UK which, twice, used this expression and I wonder what it was meant to convey, especially the word 'alone'. Is this a saying of a particular group of self-identifying Christians ? If so, what are they communicating by the 'alone' ? Are they implying that no other matters can be included as a ground of gathering ? And why is the title 'Christ' not mentioned, or 'Son of God' ?

Many denominations may believe they are right. Likewise multiple religions sincerely believe they are right. But does God require one to join a denomination? Or does he emphasize the importance of Christlike living and the study of his word?

In Romans 11, Paul describes Gentile believers as being “grafted in” to the olive tree of Israel. If Gentiles are joined to Israel spiritually, why does circumcision — a covenant sign originally given to Abraham and his descendants (Genesis 17) — no longer apply as a requirement for salvation or covenant membership? How do Christian traditions theologically reconcile the Abrahamic circumcision command with the New Testament statements that circumcision is not required (Acts 15, Galatians 5)?

[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.

Did any of the Church Fathers write explicitly on the connection between the Church and the New Jerusalem. Did any say that the Church *IS* the New Jerusalem? If so, in a nutshell, what did they say? Can anyone point me to specific resources? Thank you.

I Cor 5, Mt 18:15-17 and 2 Thes 3:6-15 speak of disassociating from unrepentant but professing Christians in the local body. Is it biblical to disassociate with an unrepentant Christian from a different church (thus under different leadership) who hasn’t been excommunicated from their own local church? How would a Reformed Protestant church answer this?

In Exodus 4:22, God tells Pharaoh: >“Israel is my firstborn son.” Later, in the New Testament, believers in Christ (the Church) are described as being adopted into God’s family and as the bride of Christ (Romans 8:15–17, Ephesians 5:25–27). My question is: if Israel is explicitly called God’s firstborn, how should Christians understand the place of the Church? Does the term “firstborn” imply that the Church is “another child” of God, perhaps a “later-born,”? How do different traditions reconcile Israel’s “firstborn” status with the identity of the Church in salvation history?

Some Christians identify as non-denominational and intentionally avoid affiliating with a specific church tradition or denomination. At the same time, Scripture speaks of the “fellowship of the Holy Spirit” (e.g., 2 Corinthians 13:14) and the unity of believers in Christ. How do non-denominational Christians understand and live out this fellowship of the Holy Spirit, given their rejection of denominational structures? Do they view fellowship as primarily spiritual and individual, or do they still see it as expressed in organized gatherings with other believers? I am particularly interested in perspectives from those who identify as non-denominational or have studied their theological approach.

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?

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.