M
Are there any OTHER churces that claim to be the "One True Church Established by Jesus Christ?"
- Status
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Traditionally, heretics and schismatics were considered to be outside of the Church. The fathers differed slightly over whether or not sacraments could exist outside of the Church, but they almost all agreed that the sacraments of heretics were graceless, and on this account, they all agreed that sacramental grace did not exist outside of the Church.
Degrees of communion ecclesiology essentially turns the question of whether sacraments exist outside of the Church on its head by asserting that the Church is wherever the sacraments are celebrated, such that all people who are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit become members of the Catholic Church through their common baptism, though some become members of the Church imperfectly, because they either are not in corporate union with the Roman Catholic Church, or because they have not received all of the sacraments of initiation.
So from the perspective of one who holds to this ecclesiology, the Protestants would be said to be in a lower degree of communion with the Catholic Church, by virtue of their common baptism. Their degree of communion would be the lowest because they in general do not have any of the other sacraments of initiation or a valid priesthood. The Orthodox would be said to have have a higher degree of communion than the Protestants, by virtue of celebrating all seven sacraments in common, though by not being in communion with the bishop of Rome, their communion would be said still to be imperfect.
The Orthodox on the other hand still hold to an older ecclesiology, where the celebration of sacraments does not put one automatically in the Catholic Church. According this ecclesiology, there can be no degrees of communion, and consequently, the Protestants, the Roman Catholics, the Church of the East, and the Oriental Orthodox are said to be, according to us, equally separated from the Catholic Church, which we hold to be the Orthodox Church alone.
F
fallow_spirit
Guest
Honestly I’d say just about all churches believe they are the only truth to some extent. They say that other denominations are still Christians but in the end everyone is going to believe that they’re view is right, or at least the most right. So Baptists might believe that non-Baptist churches have biblical truth but in the end will still believe that the Baptist Church has the complete biblical truth (or at least the closest thing to it). IMO is a part of human nature, we wouldn’t believe what we believe unless we thought we were right.
Also I don’t see why you excluded the LDS, JW’s and other groups like them. Sure we might not consider them Christians, but nevertheless they still claim to be the one true church. An alien is not going to know anything about Nicaea, the Trinity or any of the internal theological arguments we Christians are having on earth. All they are going to see is that the Latter-Saints and Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to be God’s one true church/organization.
Also I don’t see why you excluded the LDS, JW’s and other groups like them. Sure we might not consider them Christians, but nevertheless they still claim to be the one true church. An alien is not going to know anything about Nicaea, the Trinity or any of the internal theological arguments we Christians are having on earth. All they are going to see is that the Latter-Saints and Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to be God’s one true church/organization.
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
I personally find that the Orthodox position makes more sense to me than the “degrees of communion” view. I never really understood how it could be possible for a Church (i.e. the Orthodox Church), not in communion with the Catholic Church, to have valid sacraments, including valid priesthood. But then, I also still don’t understand how it’s possible for anyone, even a non-Christian, to perform a valid baptism, and not the other sacraments (yes, I understand that this would only be in an “emergency”).
Maybe it’s the LDS thinking that I’ve had for the last few years that might still be there in the back of my mind, but I found (and maybe still do) that the LDS view on ecclesiology and validity of ordinances/sacraments made perfect sense to me (basically, valid priesthood and ordinances are only found in the “one true church”, and those “out of communion” with that church don’t have the authority from God to perform the ordinances). Therefore, I’m more inclined to be partial to the Orthodox view, which is more similar to that line of thinking.
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
Wow. 44 posts in reply to my question, and not a single on-topic response.
W
White_Tree
Guest
Did you actually read through the whole thread? I read through many replies, and saw quite a few posts that seemed to address your original question.
If these were not the types of responses you were looking for, perhaps it would be helpful to elaborate what exactly it is that you are seeking, and why you are displeased with the current responses.
J
JRKH
Guest
R
RKO
Guest
That’s interesting:Quite right “Catholic” has become “branded” to the Churches in communion with Rome.
Not that it would ever happen…but what if someone were to skip the foreign words and asked where was the nearest “universal church”?..
What would be the reaction of ANY of us.
Of course this is off topic…but I couldn’t resist.
My first reaction would probably be that they were some sort of unitarian…
but definitely not of the “universal” (catholic) church…
Peace
James
Q: “Where is the nearest universal Church?”
A: “Heaven, maybe. It doesn’t exist here on earth.”
And that is the fault of man.
A
adf417
Guest
Yes sir you did. I guess I never thought agreeing to disagree was ever an option for the body of Christ. And now I struggle with this concept in consideration of Jn 17…Sorry - I’ll try to do better…
No - I’m referring to the local church communities here - not the civil authorities.
Just to be clear - your original question was, what the protestant does with Mt 18:17 which says…
"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (NAS)
The view held by some is that when Mt 18:17 says “Tell it to the church”, it’s referring to the local church community. They’re reading is that it is the church members assembled together and of course you can’t assemble the entire worldwide Church together.
What this view fails to take into account is what we see in Acts 15 where two geographically separated communities who had a dispute did not agree to disagree…but rather came together in council to resolve the matter.
In other words, they restrict the meaning of the passage to the local church community without taking into consideration the wider applications of “tell it to the church” for a world wide community - nor do they see the connection between Mt 18:15-18 as instructions - and Acts 15 as those instructions put into practice.
Not sure if I’ve explained it better or not…
Peace
James
So maybe I should ask the OP to clarify his question - are you asking are there "OTHER churches that claim to be the “One True Church?” in light of “agreeing to disagree” or “agreeing to NOT disagree”?
Peace!!!
P
Peter_J
Guest
You are right, WhiteTree, there were some posts that answered the original question … although I’m wondering if some of the responders are now wishing that they had spent their time and energy elsewhere.
J
JRKH
Guest
Glad to have helped.
And yes - I struggle with this problem too. The NT is rife with calls to a deep and profound unity.
That said, agreeing to disagree (that is to have diversity) within the body is not necessarily a bad thing in many areas. After all, there is great diversity within the Catholic Church herself.
However there are issues that there must be agreement on - the fundamentals and those things that can disturb the peace of the Church. Mainly Mainly these are matters that touch upon salvation, faith and morals rather than practice.
The problem that the protestant SS “local church” view runs into is that, without a belief and acceptance of a universal and authoritative church, they have no way of resolving even these fundamental issues.
So they are left with no option other than to cling to this idea of the “invisible church of the saved” and other notions that are not as well supported in Scripture as is the RC/EO model.
Peace
James
B
BeProfOSX
Guest
To try to answer the OP:
The various Orthodox Churches, to my knowledge, all claim to be the One True Church. They see all other churches as heretical departures from genuine, historical, apostolic “Captial O” Orthodoxy.
The Lutheran church (early on at least) claimed to be the One True Church. Luther’s idea was that the Catholic Church had fallen from that position and it was up to him to restore the church. The Anglican Church, likewise, claimed (and I believe technically still does claim) to be a restoration of the One True Church. In both cases, their definition of One True Church, being, “The one church that teaches the truth.”
The early anabaptists and Landmarkist Baptists claimed to be the continuation of the One True Church (which was, of course, Baptist, in their view) in opposition to the false Catholic Church.
Seventh Day Adventists claim to be the One True Church, and early on claimed that, since Sunday Worship was the Romish Mark of the Beast, that only Saturday Sabbatarians could be saved.
The Mormons, and specifically, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints claims exclusive rights on being the One True Church restored and re-established through Joseph Smith.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are a little more complicated in that, while they do consider themselves to be “God’s organization on earth,” they do not, technically, consider themselves a church but rather an association of like-minded Bible students.
Most Protestants and Evangelicals today, as has been mentioned, consider, after Calvin, the One True Church to be the invisible universal Church, who’s only head is Jesus Christ, that consists of all true believers, past and present, living and dead. Visible, local churches and groups of churches are constituted by members of that One True Church to preach the gospel and to administer the sacraments/ordinances.
My own church’s statement of faith puts it thusly:
The various Orthodox Churches, to my knowledge, all claim to be the One True Church. They see all other churches as heretical departures from genuine, historical, apostolic “Captial O” Orthodoxy.
The Lutheran church (early on at least) claimed to be the One True Church. Luther’s idea was that the Catholic Church had fallen from that position and it was up to him to restore the church. The Anglican Church, likewise, claimed (and I believe technically still does claim) to be a restoration of the One True Church. In both cases, their definition of One True Church, being, “The one church that teaches the truth.”
The early anabaptists and Landmarkist Baptists claimed to be the continuation of the One True Church (which was, of course, Baptist, in their view) in opposition to the false Catholic Church.
Seventh Day Adventists claim to be the One True Church, and early on claimed that, since Sunday Worship was the Romish Mark of the Beast, that only Saturday Sabbatarians could be saved.
The Mormons, and specifically, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints claims exclusive rights on being the One True Church restored and re-established through Joseph Smith.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are a little more complicated in that, while they do consider themselves to be “God’s organization on earth,” they do not, technically, consider themselves a church but rather an association of like-minded Bible students.
Most Protestants and Evangelicals today, as has been mentioned, consider, after Calvin, the One True Church to be the invisible universal Church, who’s only head is Jesus Christ, that consists of all true believers, past and present, living and dead. Visible, local churches and groups of churches are constituted by members of that One True Church to preach the gospel and to administer the sacraments/ordinances.
My own church’s statement of faith puts it thusly:
So yes… lots of churches make that claim in one way or another.
A
adf417
Guest
B
BeProfOSX
Guest
No because the Christ that they believe in is not divine and it, thus, not the Christ of the Bible and not the Christ whom we proclaim thusly:
Jehovah’s Witnesses also fail on the grounds that they are not Trinitarian, they reject the personhood and deity of the Holy Spirit, and their faith is not based on the the inerrant, verbally inspired, complete revelation of God in the Old and New Testaments, which we believe to be the only rule of Christian faith and practice.
A
adf417
Guest
Oh I am aware of what they believe and what they do not believe. It’s just that I know a few JW’s who would not have a problem confessing what is in your church’s statement of faith above.
Peace!!!
B
BeProfOSX
Guest
Well I immagine that they would stumble over the paragraphs regarding the Trinity and the Holy Spirit that I alluded to but didn’t quote in full.
Specifically:
and
In fact, the whole reason those two paragraphs were put in our Statement of Faith was to weed out any Oneness Pentecostals or closet Jehovah’s Witnesses in our midst.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
We call ourselves catholic just fine, it just so happens to be more convenient to say Orthodox for obvious reasons of confusion.
A
adf417
Guest
A
andrewstx
Guest
I’m giving up my age, but when I first visited a Lutheran church the word catholic was not in their creed at all.
They said “one, holy Christian church”.
When did it change?
A
andrewstx
Guest
I was raised and dunked in the ultra-Protestant ultra-fundamentalist acapella “churches of Christ” they also believe in the “apostate” vs “restored” church like the mormons. They claim to be the only true church to exist. The eschew the words Protestant and denomination, and they prefer Christian and THE church.
This sect was founded in 1906 only, and of course is a Protestant denomination. They split from the Disciples of Christ, who split from the “Seceder Presbyterian” church, that split from the church of Scotland who split from the Catholic church.
This sect was founded in 1906 only, and of course is a Protestant denomination. They split from the Disciples of Christ, who split from the “Seceder Presbyterian” church, that split from the church of Scotland who split from the Catholic church.
- Status