Why do you think that the church had to be given a "proper name", when God had not? Jesus did not. The apostles, even at a time where heretical teachings did pop up, did not. The Holy Spirit also did not. And to just try to reason here, if any new "churches" come up having "proper names", there was no need for the church to be given a "proper name", for it being without, is better off than giving it one, which is obviously how it was in the wisdom of God. And as I said in my past post, if there be anything that identifies the church today, it is not by what name someone called it by, but by the spirit, doctrine or teachings and the gospel they preach.Historically The Church had to be given a "proper name" because heretical teachings began to pop up and new "churches" with different teachings began. So to distinguish "The Church" from other "churches" they adopted the name "Catholic" which was first used by students of the Apostle. The Church for 2,000 years has always been The Church.....Calling it The Catholic Church changes nothing.
You said "The Church for 2,000 years has always been The Church.....Calling it The Catholic Church changes nothing." That is, if at all the Catholic Church was the church spoken of in the NT scriptures. But that is not certain at all. While to your POV, calling the church by a name such as Catholic Church changes nothing, that is not necessarily without negative effect. For I think that there are not a few who thinks that if the church had a name, it should be one that clearly identifies the church as that of Jesus Christ. Nonetheless, the truth is, the church was not called by a "proper name" in scriptures, nor there was commandment to give it a name, any name for that matter. To insist that the name of the church is so and so, is a futile exercise and really proves nothing.
Tong
R0909
Last edited: