What is the one true Church?

[PinSeeker]

There is one holy catholic and apostolic church, for sure. This is Christ's (invisible, for now) Church.

Grace and peace to all.

 

[Grailhunter]

Scripture was written TO all of us: Obey those who [a]rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.

That passage clearly states that you are to submit to a man, the men of The Church. When you do that you are submitting yourself to God’s instructions given to US in Scripture. You have discerned that out of your life.

Once you exit the biblical era and there are more than one denomination this concept gets skewed. Which one is going to have authority over you and what if they conflict?

 

[Grailhunter]

Brokelite's false history about the Waldenses is similar to his sick obsession with false histories about the Inquisition. He wants more division and more hostilities, highlighting centuries old difficulties with little or no context. Here, Brokelite takes the side of Landmark Baptists because it's convenient, yet will denounce Baptists.

There is a strain of Protestant thought — most notably the “Landmark” Baptists — which seeks to find a non-Catholic “apostolic succession” all throughout Church history up to the 16th century. In the desperate attempt to claim spiritual and theological predecessors, all sorts of heretical groups are espoused, including the Montanists, Novationists, Donatists, Docetists, Cathari, Albigensians, Waldenses, Hussites, and Wycliffites.

The trouble is that none of these groups fit very well into a Protestant schema. They are either radically non-Christian, even Gnostic (e.g., the Albigensians), or far too Catholic in what they retain (Waldenses, Hussites) to qualify as “proto-Protestant.” Yet that doesn’t stop Brokelite from latching onto these groups for polemical purposes. “My enemy’s enemy is my ally.”
This is exactly what Brokelite is doing.

Were The Waldenses A Species Of Primitive "Protestants?"

There is a strain of Protestant thought -- most notably the "Landmark" Baptists -- which futilely seeks to find a non-Catholic "apostolic succession": including the Waldenses.

www.patheos.com

The ostrich religion......first step put your head firmly in the sand.....and repeat to yourself.....it didn't really happen!.....it didn't really happen.! History lies and so do the goats.

 

[Brakelite]

I "follow" what has been consistently handed down and developed for over 2000 years,

KJV Matthew 15:3, 9
3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? (That which you are following, handed down and 'developed'... Noted, scripture not considered)
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men... Such as the change made to
KJV Exodus 20:8-11
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Interesting don't you think, or is it ironic, that at exactly the time when Darwin was publishing his Origin of the Species,

Many times I've checked your so called sources, only to find your fake references can only be found on a SDA site, or your so called references can't be verified on line

Next time you doubt a source or can't find it, by all means let me know and I'll help you.

Or, you take any obscure line written by a Catholic centuries ago

That's something that I simply do not do. Any quotes come from highly esteemed, credible, and reliable sources such as known doctors of the church, (such as Thomas Aquinas eg)...papal encyclicals, or declarations from church councils.

pretend you have weapons to beat up Catholics with.

I don't beat up individual Catholics either, unless like you so often do, obfuscate the truth and deny true history by insinuating I'm lying and making stuff up. Then I might have some things to say to you as an individual. But my discussions on catholicism are focused on the institution, not on Catholics. Prophecy speaks of the institution, it doesn't address individuals. Scripture, including prophecy but not limited to that, is the basis for my conversations, and history, and Catholic doctrine, especially Catholic sourced documents, is confirmation. Such as you offered your own self above.

@Augustin56 it is bare face arrogance to believe that God has but one vehicle through which to preach the gospel. He has always, since the apostles, had numerous churches/organizations, that represented Him and His character to the world. There were millions of Christians in nations where Catholics never ventured until the late middle ages, and by that time catholicism had become deeply embedded and wholly reliant on coercion and the force of arms to "convert" people to the Catholic faith. This began with the so called conversion of Clovis, who "baptized" his entire army by marching them through a river. But you guys think that God didn't care about the rest of the world outside of Roman influence. The evidence however, and the results of missionary endeavors by those outside Catholic jurisdiction, far outweighed the false self glorifying and authoritarian military efforts by Rome. I realize your church claims millions of adherents to your faith worldwide. But the vast majority of them, particularly in South America, were converted, not by the convincing power of the word of God, but by the force of compulsion by military take over from the Spanish and Portuguese. Great Britain still celebrates and thanks God for His deliverance from the same fate.

 

[Marymog]

Once you exit the biblical era and there are more than one denomination this concept gets skewed. Which one is going to have authority over you and what if they conflict?

I get the gist of what you are saying but even in the "biblical era" The Church had issues with false prophets and division when the Apostles were alive. That is the purpose of some of the letters in the NT, to address that division amongst the faithful. Around the year 107AD, just a few short years after the Apostle John died, Ignatius (a student of John) wrote letters to various Churches telling them to listen to their bishop and wherever the bishop is, there is the catholic church. Sooooo there was division is 107AD also!

So to answer your question: Which one (denomination) has authority over me?

Five hundred years ago the Protestant Revolution started MAJOR divisions in Christianity. Sure, there was some division before that but historically I think we can agree it grew quickly/faster after Martin Luther. Some men broke off from Luther and the faithful started following/believing the teachings/writings/doctrines of those Revolutionaries and how THEY interpreted Scripture. Those Revolutionaries all disagreed with each other on that interpretation which caused further divisions in Christianity and created more....what you call....denominations.

Logically/historically we know that there was only One Church with One Teaching and One Doctrine that all those denominations split off from. That One Church/Teaching/Doctrine came from the Apostles. So one needs to look back at our Christian history and find out what the earliest Christians wrote OUTSIDE the bible on how they interpreted Scripture. When one goes back to Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp (all of whom were STUDENTS of the Apostles) and look at their writings/teachings one can see that The Catholic Churches teachings mirror their teachings. As one progresses thru Christian history timeline one can see that The Church continues to adhere to those teachings, traditions in the year 2023.

You choose to follow the teachings (interpretation of Scripture) of the men from the Protestant Revolution who were NOT Students of the Apostles. Your "denominations" timeline begins 500 years ago? I am not sure of this since you, to the best of my knowledge, have not told me what denomination you belong to!!

I have found The Church that Jesus said he would start. Have you?

 

[Marymog]

No where have I spoken of an invisible church. ......

I apologize. You never called the church "invisible". What you said was the true church was a remnant (small), always in the minority (smallest part of a group), Hidden away (can't be found) in the wilderness.

I interpreted that as being invisible, but you never said they were invisible.

 

[Augustin56]

KJV Matthew 15:3, 9
3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? (That which you are following, handed down and 'developed'... Noted, scripture not considered)
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men... Such as the change made to
KJV Exodus 20:8-11
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Interesting don't you think, or is it ironic, that at exactly the time when Darwin was publishing his Origin of the Species,

Next time you doubt a source or can't find it, by all means let me know and I'll help you.

That's something that I simply do not do. Any quotes come from highly esteemed, credible, and reliable sources such as known doctors of the church, (such as Thomas Aquinas eg)...papal encyclicals, or declarations from church councils.

I don't beat up individual Catholics either, unless like you so often do, obfuscate the truth and deny true history by insinuating I'm lying and making stuff up. Then I might have some things to say to you as an individual. But my discussions on catholicism are focused on the institution, not on Catholics. Prophecy speaks of the institution, it doesn't address individuals. Scripture, including prophecy but not limited to that, is the basis for my conversations, and history, and Catholic doctrine, especially Catholic sourced documents, is confirmation. Such as you offered your own self above.

@Augustin56 it is bare face arrogance to believe that God has but one vehicle through which to preach the gospel. He has always, since the apostles, had numerous churches/organizations, that represented Him and His character to the world. There were millions of Christians in nations where Catholics never ventured until the late middle ages, and by that time catholicism had become deeply embedded and wholly reliant on coercion and the force of arms to "convert" people to the Catholic faith. This began with the so called conversion of Clovis, who "baptized" his entire army by marching them through a river. But you guys think that God didn't care about the rest of the world outside of Roman influence. The evidence however, and the results of missionary endeavors by those outside Catholic jurisdiction, far outweighed the false self glorifying and authoritarian military efforts by Rome. I realize your church claims millions of adherents to your faith worldwide. But the vast majority of them, particularly in South America, were converted, not by the convincing power of the word of God, but by the force of compulsion by military take over from the Spanish and Portuguese. Great Britain still celebrates and thanks God for His deliverance from the same fate.

Brakelite, I'm not sure if you know this or not, but the majority of Christians in the world are Catholic. The thousands of splintered denominations that make up Protestantism account for just over a third of Christianity. I find an interesting link there, to the third of the angels who rejected God's plan and are now demons.

Jesus founded only one Church. He never authorized anyone else to found a different church, with different beliefs than the beliefs He gave His Church. I have had many friends over my life who were very faithful Protestants, and I know God loves them. But they have deprived themselves of many of the gifts Jesus left for them (5 of the Sacraments, to begin with), as well as the fullness of Divine Revelation. My problem is not with Protestants as individuals, but with Protestant-ism, which is a heresy.

 

[Marymog]

No where have I spoken of an invisible church. How the Waldenses organized themselves I don't know. But they had the scriptures, and were otherwise known as insabbatatii. Which is why the Roman church hated them... They refused to honor the pagan day of the sun as Rome had established and enforced throughout it's so called holy empire. Did they have bishops? I don't know. But the Assyrian church with which they were connected had bishops, and a supreme head they called metropolitan, I think from memory. They were highly organized, and held their own councils on regular basis where the various bishops would report the progress of the missionary endeavors, and they would discuss how best to press forward into the future, in consideration of all the opposition they faced from both pagan religions and the state. And that opposition included emperorJustinian, champion for the Papacy. He didn't like the fact that there were millions of Christians from Syria and throughout Asia as far away as China who had no connections to the popes. All history Mary, recorded and a testimony to the power of the true gospel.

That doesn't answer my original quesiton. So, based on your non-answer, I will ask again in a different way:

Do you believe that the Waldenses was the remnant/minority/hidden church that Jesus started?

 

[ChristisGod]

I get the gist of what you are saying but even in the "biblical era" The Church had issues with false prophets and division when the Apostles were alive. That is the purpose of some of the letters in the NT, to address that division amongst the faithful. Around the year 107AD, just a few short years after the Apostle John died, Ignatius (a student of John) wrote letters to various Churches telling them to listen to their bishop and wherever the bishop is, there is the catholic church. Sooooo there was division is 107AD also!

So to answer your question: Which one (denomination) has authority over me?

Five hundred years ago the Protestant Revolution started MAJOR divisions in Christianity. Sure, there was some division before that but historically I think we can agree it grew quickly/faster after Martin Luther. Some men broke off from Luther and the faithful started following/believing the teachings/writings/doctrines of those Revolutionaries and how THEY interpreted Scripture. Those Revolutionaries all disagreed with each other on that interpretation which caused further divisions in Christianity and created more....what you call....denominations.

Logically/historically we know that there was only One Church with One Teaching and One Doctrine that all those denominations split off from. That One Church/Teaching/Doctrine came from the Apostles. So one needs to look back at our Christian history and find out what the earliest Christians wrote OUTSIDE the bible on how they interpreted Scripture. When one goes back to Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp (all of whom were STUDENTS of the Apostles) and look at their writings/teachings one can see that The Catholic Churches teachings mirror their teachings. As one progresses thru Christian history timeline one can see that The Church continues to adhere to those teachings, traditions in the year 2023.

You choose to follow the teachings (interpretation of Scripture) of the men from the Protestant Revolution who were NOT Students of the Apostles. Your "denominations" timeline begins 500 years ago? I am not sure of this since you, to the best of my knowledge, have not told me what denomination you belong to!!

I have found The Church that Jesus said he would start. Have you?

I don't think either group Protestants/Catholics have it all right. Both contain truth and error. No single group/denomination/church has all the truth.

Jesus and the Apostles had all the truth not us. We have all the truth in Scripture and that is where the divisions take place is understanding the scriptures correctly.

There are "essential" truths that are salvific in nature we must believe to be saved.

hope this helps !!!

 

[MatthewG]

The only one true church,

is the blameless one.

Ephesians 5
Wives and Husbands
(Song of Solomon 1:1–17; 1 Peter 3:1–7)

21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.c

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, His body, of which He is the Savior.24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her 26to sanctify her, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to Himself as a glorious church, without stain or wrinkle or any such blemish, but holy and blameless.

28In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29Indeed, no one ever hated his own body, but he nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church. 30For we are members of His body.d

31“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”e 32This mystery is profound, but I am speaking about Christ and the church. 33Nevertheless, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.


I believe it was the first-fruits of the first bride of Christ - IE: The First believers who devouted their life towards God.

That doesn't mean second-fruits did not come afterwards, in the established now - Heavenly Kingdom.

 

[Marymog]

I don't think either group Protestants/Catholics have it all right. Both contain truth and error. No single group/denomination/church has all the truth.

Jesus and the Apostles had all the truth not us. We have all the truth in Scripture and that is where the divisions take place is understanding the scriptures correctly.

There are "essential" truths that are salvific in nature we must believe to be saved.

hope this helps !!!

hey Christophany,

How does your theory that Protestant denominations and The Catholic Church teach some truth and error square with what Jesus said in John 8:32?

Do you have a list of "essential truths that are salvific in nature" of which "we must believe to be saved"?

Thanks for your response in advance.........

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Do you have a list of "essential truths that are salvific in nature" of which "we must believe to be saved"?

“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved…” (Acts 16:31)

“…sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.” (John 5:14)

“…continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel…” (Colossians 1:23)

“…he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.” (Matthew 24:13)

 

[ChristisGod]

hey Christophany,

How does your theory that Protestant denominations and The Catholic Church teach some truth and error square with what Jesus said in John 8:32?

Do you have a list of "essential truths that are salvific in nature" of which "we must believe to be saved"?

Thanks for your response in advance.........

John 8:32 does not mean all truth . Jesus prayer for the disciples was sanctify them in truth, thy word is truth and I am the way the truth and the life no one comes to the Father except through Me.

There are essentials such as believing in the True God vs false gods/idols. Believing in the true Christ not false christs. There is believing in the true gospel vs a false gospel. Believing in the bodily Resurrection/Ascension of Jesus vs a spirit jesus who is no longer a man. These are but a few salvific doctrines of beliefs that are essential. Faith being another one where we are saved by faith alone but that faith is not alone and bears much fruit- we were saved by grace through faith with the purpose of good works God has prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. Eph 2:8-10.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Marymog]

“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved…” (Acts 16:31)

“…sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.” (John 5:14)

“…continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel…” (Colossians 1:23)

“…he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.” (Matthew 24:13)

All very good truths Michiah...thank you. What about these "truths":

Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.... the one who eats this bread will live forever

Baptism.....now saves you,

Are they salvific and how do you put them into practice?

 

[Marymog]

John 8:32 does not mean all truth . Jesus prayer for the disciples was sanctify them in truth, thy word is truth and I am the way the truth and the life no one comes to the Father except through Me.

There are essentials such as believing in the True God vs false gods/idols. Believing in the true Christ not false christs. There is believing in the true gospel vs a false gospel. Believing in the bodily Resurrection/Ascension of Jesus vs a spirit jesus who is no longer a man. These are but a few salvific doctrines of beliefs that are essential. Faith being another one where we are saved by faith alone but that faith is not alone and bears much fruit- we were saved by grace through faith with the purpose of good works God has prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. Eph 2:8-10.

hope this helps !!!

Well, I don't know what you mean by "all truth". I think we will agree that we will never know the truth of how the universe was created or atoms, protons etc. I think He meant the "truth" he was teaching us; His words are the Truth.

Your "essentials list are pretty easy salvific doctrines for all to believe. They don't require much interpretation.

What about these "truths":

Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.... the one who eats this bread will live forever

Baptism.....now saves you,

Are they salvific and how do you put them into practice?

 

[ChristisGod]

Well, I don't know what you mean by "all truth". I think we will agree that we will never know the truth of how the universe was created or atoms, protons etc. I think He meant the "truth" he was teaching us; His words are the Truth.

Your "essentials list are pretty easy salvific doctrines for all to believe. They don't require much interpretation.

What about these "truths":

Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.... the one who eats this bread will live forever

Baptism.....now saves you,

Are they salvific and how do you put them into practice?

The short answer is no they are not salvific and also very controversial within Christendom as to their proper understanding.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Are they salvific and how do you put them into practice?

How will these things be put into practice when the Antichrist is present chopping heads off?

Yet those who endure unto the end without taking the mark will be saved.

 

[MatthewG]

God is pleased by faith. A truth, well known by many. What does a saving faith to the kingdom of heaven bring? Newness of life; even while you struggle in the flesh. It brings forth the ability to have love for God and love for others. That doesnt mean it will be done perfectly; however unless Christ manifest through you; which brings forth Gods love. To love even those who have done you wrong.

The church though, in context is a perfect blameless church that doesnt seem to exist anymore. The seven churchs in Asia minor dont stand anymore either.

 

[Marymog]

The short answer is no they are not salvific and also very controversial within Christendom as to their proper understanding.

Hmmm....So Scripture says baptism SAVES you....but baptism isn't salvific?????????????

Abiding in Jesus and Jesus abiding IN us is not salvific??????


salvific defined: having the intent or power to save or redeem
abiding defined: enduring

 

[Marymog]

How will these things be put into practice when the Antichrist is present chopping heads off?

Yet those who endure unto the end without taking the mark will be saved.

You dodged the question. That question was based on what YOU said:

What about these "truths":

Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.... the one who eats this bread will live forever

Baptism.....now saves you,

Are they salvific and how do you put them into practice?