What is the one true Church?

[MatthewG]

Do you need a bishop, or a overseer as someone you can confide in and trust, @Marymog

Curious matthew.


Idc if people go to catholic church or not. It doesn't make them anymore christian than the next person who is willingly to show a person agape love with no judgement.

 

[Marymog]

I am sorry you are gonna have to quote where that is from and whom it was written to.

While I respect my elders and what not. I do not have to submit to them if I choose not. It is not a rebellious thing it is called going against the grain of traditions of man, and submitting ones self to God.

I dk what you do personally but I know it is God I submit to. Not man.

So while it is not me who is familiar with the passages you are speaking about - it is lack of discernment in which one assumes one is being written to when they are not -- all the while there are spiritual principles laid out through out the narrative.

Thank you also for your time.

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.

 

[MatthewG]

No that is just a claim you say its been written to all of us. @Marymog

But you cant quote a scripture that proves it.


Was mainly wanting to know the answer to this question.

Do you need a deacon or bishop to confide in and trust?

 

[MatthewG]

Hebrews 13:17 KJV
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.


This is talking about the apostolic rule of the day. The one which the church would be, blameless, spotlesss without blimish.

This letter was written to Jews and im American.

But I also can see this as something about “jobs” nothibg else.

Im suppse to obey my supervisor when she tells me to do so thing.
Im suppose to obey an officer, judge, governer.

So by not doing wrong - they wont have anything to grieve over.

 

[ChristisGod]

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.

Amen submitting to authority is biblical, those who rebel against it are rebelling against God.

 

[ChristisGod]

No it’s not it’s talking about elders.

Hebrews 13:17 KJV
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.


This is talking about the apostolic rule of the day. The one which the church would be, blameless, spotlesss without blimish.

This letter was written to Jews and im American.

But I also can see this as something about “jobs” nothibg else.

Im suppse to obey my supervisor when she tells me to do so thing.
Im suppose to obey an officer, judge, governer.

So by not doing wrong - they wont have anything to grieve over.

you don’t know what you are talking about. Acts 20:28 the Apostle's appointed overseers/ elders to rule over the churches and the flock submits to their leadership and the rule over the flock as Shepherds do with sheep. Paul uses overseer/ episkopos and elder interchangeably in Timothy and Titus as the same office of elders.

Englishman's Concordance
Acts 20:28 N-AMP
GRK: ἅγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους ποιμαίνειν τὴν
NAS: has made you overseers, to shepherd
KJV: you overseers, to feed
INT: Holy did set overseers to shepherd the
Philippians 1:1 N-DMP
GRK: Φιλίπποις σὺν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις
NAS: including the overseers and deacons:
KJV: with the bishops and
INT: Philippi with [the] overseers and deacons

1 Timothy 3:2 N-AMS
GRK: οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι
NAS: An overseer, then, must
KJV: A bishop then must
INT: then the overseer blameless to be

Titus 1:7 N-AMS
GRK: γὰρ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνέγκλητον εἶναι
NAS: For the overseer must
KJV: For a bishop must be
INT: indeed the overseer blameless to be

1 Peter 2:25 N-AMS
GRK: ποιμένα καὶ ἐπίσκοπον τῶν ψυχῶν
NAS: to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.
KJV: the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
INT: shepherd and overseer of the souls



hope this helps !!!

 

[MatthewG]

A look at Timothy

Greeting 1Ti 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope; Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and the Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope, 1Ti 1:2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the...

www.christianityboard.com

Just got the qualifications of deacons and bishops @Christophany

I personally do not think it pertains to us but some do... There are some spiritual principles laid out with-in the context for sure, I do not doubt that.

 

[MatthewG]

If people wanna claim to be a bishop or deacon, that is all cool. Respectful to anyone person who just desires to serve the Lord, and help others. May have some odd beliefs or counter intuitive thoughts, but everyone is a work in progress.

 

[MatthewG]

But when it comes down to the one true church?


I suppose anyone whom is a believer in Christ, is their own church - which gathers together with others to celebrate the things of God, because as individuals just as Jesus told his disciples to feed the sheep.




So you do also Gods will in the same manner.

 

[Illuminator]

Soooo the Waldenses were this “invisible” church you speak of with bishops and overseers?

Curious Mary

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

 

[Brakelite]

Soooo the Waldenses were this “invisible” church you speak of with bishops and overseers?

Curious Mary

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.

 

[Brakelite]

Brokelite's false history

It's far easier to throw me under the bus, denigrate what I report, and write it off as heretical and divisive, rather than investigate for yourself the numerous histories that recount the incredibly wonderful efforts of God's people in bringing the gospel to heathen nations. But you are a Catholic apologist. The teaching of the gospel in it's purity is anathema to your church, so I guess you have to follow the party line.

 

[Augustin56]

It's far easier to throw me under the bus, denigrate what I report, and write it off as heretical and divisive, rather than investigate for yourself the numerous histories that recount the incredibly wonderful efforts of God's people in bringing the gospel to heathen nations. But you are a Catholic apologist. The teaching of the gospel in it's purity is anathema to your church, so I guess you have to follow the party line.

The Gospel came from the Catholic Church. The first members of Christ's Church, the Catholic Church, wrote the Gospels. The Catholic Church in the late 4th century declared the Gospels to be Scripture.

Where, in your supposition, do you propose that the Catholic Church changed any of the teachings of Christ, and suddenly, 16 centuries later the Protestant Reformation happened and one of the literally thousands of man-made, different-believing denominations has it all right? Did Jesus make a quick trip back and hand one of the founders of these man-made denominations a list of corrections? Or maybe an angel (as the Mormons seem to claim)? How exactly do you propose this "correction" happened?

 

[Illuminator]

It's far easier to throw me under the bus, denigrate what I report, and write it off as heretical and divisive,

Because the Seventh Day Adventists are, in fact, a false cult, constantly accusing the CC as the "Whore of Babylon", and all of Protestantism as being the daughters of the whore. Seeing whores everywhere is a mental illness.

rather than investigate for yourself the numerous histories that recount the incredibly wonderful efforts of God's people in bringing the gospel to heathen nations.

First, your "histories" focus on sin and evil and lack context. You lie about history by omission, and to provide context of any given alleged scandal proposed by you requires pages and pages of text that no one will read anyway, so you make tabloid type headlines of complicated historical events and pretend you have weapons to beat up Catholics with. Your "dominating bloodthirsty dictatorship of the papacy" is insulting, stupid and absurd, a constant theme of yours, so you need to be thrown under the bus. Same goes for your invented "Catholic Roman Empire Church" lunacy.

But you are a Catholic apologist. The teaching of the gospel in it's purity is anathema to your church, so I guess you have to follow the party line.

Apologetics is a hobby, I've never claimed to be an apologist. There are no professional Catholic apologists in here. I often rely on professional apologists because they articulate better than I can, and when I do that, I always post the source. 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. Or, you take any obscure line written by a Catholic centuries ago that means nothing in today's world, and act like it's binding and infallible. That makes you a bully, a forum thug.

I don't "follow the party line", another stupid insult. I "follow" what has been consistently handed down and developed for over 2000 years, you follow the party line that started in 1860 that has been demonizing Protestants and Catholics ever since. You elevate your false sect by stepping on the necks of everyone else.

 

[Brakelite]

The Gospel of God's love for man, the Gospel of the dignity of the person and the Gospel of life are a single and indivisible Gospel.

Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995) | John Paul II

Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995) on the Value and Inviolability ¶ of Human Life

www.vatican.va

And there you have confirmed and expressed most eloquently how the Catholic gospel is unbiblical, and therefore inadequate to the salvation of men.
The gospel of the Catholic Church is about the value of human life as expressed in the life of Jesus. It is about the incarnation.
The gospel of the Bible is about the value of the blood of Christ with which there is no remission of sin. It is about the death of Christ, which was a propitiation for our sins. The gospel of the Bible is the good news concerning the humility of the Son of God in giving His life a ransom for many.
Please note the following points...
1. If atonement was made at the cross of Calvary, by whom was it made? I ask this because throughout scripture we are informed that atonement is the work of a priest…are we to assume that Caiaphas or some of his cronies officiated there as priests? No, they were not offering Christ as atonement…they were wickedly murdering him as were the Roman soldiers. And Christ Himself was not the priest, He was the victim.

2. Further to the above, the slaying of the lamb did not make atonement, because at no time was the priest ever to slay the victim…it was always the sinner. The sinner would confess his sins over the animal, transferring his sins to the animal, then cut its throat. See Leviticus 4:1-4; 13-15 etc. After this, the priest took the blood into the sanctuary to make atonement. Levit. 4:5-12;16-21.

3. Christ was/is even now the appointed High Priest to make atonement, but could not officiate in such a capacity until after His resurrection. Certainly there is no evidence that He did such a thing while on earth.

4. The atonement was always made in the sanctuary….Calvary was not such a place….Calvary was “outside the gate”. And Christ's blood was not taken into Jerusalem to the temple.

5. According to Hebrews 8:4 Christ could not make the atonement while on earth, because He could not be a priest while on earth, not being born into the house of Levi. The Levitical priesthood was an earthly function, the heavenly priesthood like that of Melchizedek, a heavenly/divine function.

6. Thus whatever nature atonement was, could not be accomplished by Jesus until after His ascension and entry into the heavenly sanctuary described in Hebrews, where with His own blood He now ministers as our High Priest in making atonement for us.

Thus the gospel we must share, teach, and preach on must be the full gospel in its entirety. It cannot be replaced or counterfeited by a bogus priesthood officiating as vicars of Christ on earth. No part or portion can be left out as if an optional extra. Only with the full gospel taught is the power of the gospel manifest in bearing fruits of righteousness in those who by nature are still sinners, but who are being transformed by the renewing of their minds into the image of Christ. It is the ministry of Christ operating from within the sanctuary in heaven, before the throne of the Father, that is our sanctification. It is the work of the holy Spirit operating in our lives to bring about the character adjustments necessary in this life to fellowship with holy beings in glory.

God cannot condone the continuing re-sacrificing of His Son each day by Catholic priests. The Rock, who is Christ, (see 1Cor 10:4; Exo.17:6; Num.20:8;
KJV Isaiah 53:7-9
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
See also for your edification and learning, the story of the Samaritan woman at the well, and compare the words of Jesus to her with His counsel to His disciples to wait for the day of pentecost for the outpouring of the holy Spirit, and compare the results at both events. From whence did the holy Spirit come... The descendants of the false rock, Peter, or the true Rock in heaven, the only Mediator between God and man, our High Priest Jesus?)
How many times was Moses to strike the Rock? What happened to him when he presumed to know better than God? How many times was Jesus to be sacrificed?

PS I couldn't help but notice that you studiously avoided any inquiry about the sources of history I use, but for the benefit of the readers pretended there weren't any, or that I made it all up. I also noticed you avoid any mention of the prophetic indications that identify, without any shadow of doubt, the true identity of the papal institution. That scares you, because you know it can be proved from scripture that the Papacy is the Antichrist. After all, it was those very scriptures that exposed the Papacy which brought power to the reformation, and changed the world forever.
"The entrance of The word giveth light".

 

[Brakelite]

The Gospel came from the Catholic Church. The first members of Christ's Church, the Catholic Church, wrote the Gospels.

I would suggest that the gospel came from Christ. I would also suggest that the first time the gospel was preached, on Pentecost, there was no written version, but those who preached the gospel did so by the power of the holy Spirit, a long time before there was any official organized institution. God was not reliant on an institution to share the good news with mankind, but chose to use individual men and women who were willing to be used and led by the holy Spirit. As the numbers grew of course, it was necessary to organize. There were several reasons for this. First, to minister fairly and equitably to the widows and children, (which numbers would increase exponentially as the persecutions increased) and to better organize missionary efforts. This organization was not the "Catholic Church". This organization grew in all directions, and the Catholic Church as it developed into the Papacy persecuted those organizations which for several centuries had been conquering the world for Christ.

 

[Brakelite]

I said, quote...rather than investigate for yourself the numerous histories that recount the incredibly wonderful efforts of God's people in bringing the gospel to heathen nations.
To which you responded

First, your "histories" focus on sin and evil and lack context.

What a strange response. Is this your method of denying the work of missionaries that worked tirelessly throughout the world for centuries, turning the world upside down for the sake of the gospel? You deny this history? You pretend it didn't exist simply because you cannot explain it? Is everything outside the Catholic Church sinful, evil, and lacking context? Are you denying the power of God, and the prerogative of God to use anyone He chooses to share the good news? Are you so deluded to still believe, as taught by your predecessors, that there is no salvation outside of the Roman pontiff's area of judicial authority?

 

[Illuminator]

The Gospel is expressed in many ways in many encyclicals, here is a recent one:

EVANGELIUM VITAE
To the Bishops Priests and Deacons
Men and Women religious
lay Faithful
and all People of Good Will
on the Value and Inviolability
of Human Life

INTRODUCTION

1. The Gospel of life is at the heart of Jesus' message. Lovingly received day after day by the Church, it is to be preached with dauntless fidelity as "good news" to the people of every age and culture.

At the dawn of salvation, it is the Birth of a Child which is proclaimed as joyful news: "I bring you good news of a great joy which will come to all the people; for to you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord" (Lk 2:10-11). The source of this "great joy" is the Birth of the Saviour; but Christmas also reveals the full meaning of every human birth, and the joy which accompanies the Birth of the Messiah is thus seen to be the foundation and fulfilment of joy at every child born into the world (cf. Jn 16:21).

When he presents the heart of his redemptive mission, Jesus says: "I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly" (Jn 10:10). In truth, he is referring to that "new" and "eternal" life which consists in communion with the Father, to which every person is freely called in the Son by the power of the Sanctifying Spirit. It is precisely in this "life" that all the aspects and stages of human life achieve their full significance.

The incomparable worth of the human person

2. Man is called to a fullness of life which far exceeds the dimensions of his earthly existence, because it consists in sharing the very life of God. The loftiness of this supernatural vocation reveals the greatness and the inestimable value of human life even in its temporal phase. Life in time, in fact, is the fundamental condition, the initial stage and an integral part of the entire unified process of human existence. It is a process which, unexpectedly and undeservedly, is enlightened by the promise and renewed by the gift of divine life, which will reach its full realization in eternity (cf. 1 Jn 3:1-2). At the same time, it is precisely this supernatural calling which highlights the relative character of each individual's earthly life. After all, life on earth is not an "ultimate" but a "penultimate" reality; even so, it remains a sacred reality entrusted to us, to be preserved with a sense of responsibility and brought to perfection in love and in the gift of ourselves to God and to our brothers and sisters.

The Church knows that this Gospel of life, which she has received from her Lord, 1 has a profound and persuasive echo in the heart of every person-believer and non-believer alike-because it marvellously fulfils all the heart's expectations while infinitely surpassing them. Even in the midst of difficulties and uncertainties, every person sincerely open to truth and goodness can, by the light of reason and the hidden action of grace, come to recognize in the natural law written in the heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15) the sacred value of human life from its very beginning until its end, and can affirm the right of every human being to have this primary good respected to the highest degree. Upon the recognition of this right, every human community and the political community itself are founded.

In a special way, believers in Christ must defend and promote this right, aware as they are of the wonderful truth recalled by the Second Vatican Council: "By his incarnation the Son of God has united himself in some fashion with every human being".2 This saving event reveals to humanity not only the boundless love of God who "so loved the world that he gave his only Son" (Jn 3:16), but also the incomparable value of every human person.

The Church, faithfully contemplating the mystery of the Redemption, acknowledges this value with ever new wonder.3 She feels called to proclaim to the people of all times this "Gospel", the source of invincible hope and true joy for every period of history. The Gospel of God's love for man, the Gospel of the dignity of the person and the Gospel of life are a single and indivisible Gospel.

Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995) | John Paul II

Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995) on the Value and Inviolability ¶ of Human Life

www.vatican.va

Brokelite: The teaching of the gospel in it's purity is anathema to your church, so I guess you have to follow the party line.

 

[Illuminator]

What value is there in the historical consensus? Dr. Miano investigates the role, function, and usefulness of the collective judgment and opinion of historians.

 

[Augustin56]

I would suggest that the gospel came from Christ. I would also suggest that the first time the gospel was preached, on Pentecost, there was no written version, but those who preached the gospel did so by the power of the holy Spirit, a long time before there was any official organized institution. God was not reliant on an institution to share the good news with mankind, but chose to use individual men and women who were willing to be used and led by the holy Spirit. As the numbers grew of course, it was necessary to organize. There were several reasons for this. First, to minister fairly and equitably to the widows and children, (which numbers would increase exponentially as the persecutions increased) and to better organize missionary efforts. This organization was not the "Catholic Church". This organization grew in all directions, and the Catholic Church as it developed into the Papacy persecuted those organizations which for several centuries had been conquering the world for Christ.

I would absolutely agree that the Gospel came from Christ. He gave it to the Apostles, orally, who passed it on to their successors, the bishops, and so forth, for 2000 years now. Some of what Christ gave the Apostles was eventually written down. We call that the New Testament. And, yes, they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to teach and preach the Gospel, and to eventually write some of it down. The Holy Spirit has always been alive and active in Christ's Church. The Church, however, is not, nor has it ever been, a mere institution. It is a living, Divine entity, called the "Body of Christ" by St. Paul in his epistles.

Recall when Saul (St. Paul's Hebrew name) was going around persecuting Christians before his conversion. Christ knocked him off of his horse and asked him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?" Note that Jesus didn't ask him, "...why do you persecute My Church?" which he was actually doing, but, "...why do you persecute Me?" Christ identifies as one with His Church! Attack Christ's Church and you attack Christ.

The Catholic Church is the original Church founded by Christ. St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop of Antioch ordained by St. Peter, was captured by the Romans. While they were transporting him to be martyred for the faith, he wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans around 107 A.D., referring to the "Catholic Church," not in such a manner as if he were coining the term, but in such a manner in which he fully expected the Smyrnaeans to understand what he was talking about.

It says in paragraph 8, "Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

See the entire letter here: Ignatius Letter to the Smyrnaeans 107 A.D.

And being a living entity, it was meant to grow and mature, which is exactly what the Church did. When a baby is born, it isn't nearly as capable as it is when it becomes an adult. But nowhere in that process does the baby become someone else, with a different brain or a different soul or a different body.