One True Church Hypothetical

[NotTooSmart]

This is a question that has been bugging me for a while.

Let us assume for a minute that I (or anybody for that matter) came to the conclusion that one branch of Christianity out there had to be the “One True Church”. Then it would follow that every other branch of Christianity out there would be to some extent inferior to this “One True Church”…

If I were to observe the lifestyles, fruits, and conduct of all of the branches of Christianity out there, would it be reasonable for me to expect that the “One True Church” should demonstrate a superior quality of these attributes in relationship to those branches of Christianity that are inferior. Why or why not.

I suspect the answer by Catholics might be to pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, but that type of response makes me want to check out the man behind the curtain more closely.

 

[prodigalson12]

The question is, do only Catholics go to heaven, do only Protestants, do only this or that sect go to heaven? I take into account, regardless of denomination, test your own faith, see that is real, if it doesn’t pass the mustard with you, wait until you have to face real trials, it will be over before it began.

 

[DOShea]

If I were to observe the lifestyles, fruits, and conduct of all of the branches of Christianity out there, would it be reasonable for me to expect that the “One True Church” should demonstrate a superior quality of these attributes in relationship to those branches of Christianity that are inferior. Why or why not.

Perhaps you could make a theoretical case for doing it this way, but not a practical one. First, you would have to examine ALL of each. Second, how would you account for silent and undetectable “fruits” like prayer, sacrifice, forgiveness? How well can you read hearts?

Finally, Mat 7: 17-18 is not compatible with the idea that a Church, if it is a good “tree,” will have no sinners in it. They all do. It is speaking more of what is produced by a faithful follower, not an unfaithful one. You can examine Christ’s own ministry to see this in action. It included Judas. If you judged Christ’s ministry on the fact that it “produced a Judas,” you would be forced to conclude it was a “bad tree.” But if you take it in context and examine the real fruits, that is, the Apostles who were true to His teaching, then you conclude it was a “good tree.”

So you can’t just randomly pick out the few who stray outside the example of Christ and use them as indicators of “the tree.”

 

[prodigalson12]

Ephesians 4:4-6

“We are all one body, we have the same Spirit, and
we have all been called to the same glorious
future. There is only one Lord, one faith, one
baptism, and there is only one God and Father, who
is over us all and in us all and living through us all.”

 

[Katholish]

NotTooSmart,

If I were to observe the lifestyles, fruits, and conduct of all of the branches of Christianity out there, would it be reasonable for me to expect that the “One True Church” should demonstrate a superior quality of these attributes in relationship to those branches of Christianity that are inferior. Why or why not.

Seems reasonable, I would only advise that you would need to understand the criteria established by the Church or sect you are looking at for what it means to be a member or member in good standing. It wouldn’t be fair, for instance, to judge the Anglican Communion based on members of a “fringe” group called Anglicans for Human Sacrifice or something if the official group denounces their actions. The bigger the community, the more this becomes an issue.

You would also need to take into consideration the groups philosophical/theological views on how the individual is supposed to act morally, etc.

 

[NotTooSmart]

Perhaps you could make a theoretical case for doing it this way, but not a practical one. First, you would have to examine ALL of each. Second, how would you account for silent and undetectable “fruits” like prayer, sacrifice, forgiveness? How well can you read hearts?

Good point. Nobody can read hearts. The best one can do is go on appearance.

So this would be a very rough, almost intuitive observation.

Would there be “something about the One True Church”, maybe hard to quanity, that would just set it apart from all of the inferior brands of Christianity. Or would the One True Church look just the same as the inferior brands of Christianity.

Finally, Mat 7: 17-18 is not compatible with the idea that a Church, if it is a good “tree,” will have no sinners in it. They all do. It is speaking more of what is produced by a faithful follower, not an unfaithful one. You can examine Christ’s own ministry to see this in action. It included Judas. If you judged Christ’s ministry on the fact that it “produced a Judas,” you would be forced to conclude it was a “bad tree.” But if you take it in context and examine the real fruits, that is, the Apostles who were true to His teaching, then you conclude it was a “good tree.”

So you can’t just randomly pick out the few who stray outside the example of Christ and use them as indicators of “the tree.”

Good point again. Maybe you can’t make a conclusion on outliers.

But what if the outliers were really systemic.

Let us say for example the TBN crowd claimed to be the One True Church. And in observing the TBN crowd I would see one evangelist after the other in some type of financial controversy. Much less the lifestyle of the rich and famous.

Would it be legit just observing TBN in action to call their bluff in that one just on the basis of how they behave.

You see I also have been thinking about the Scripture. And the two places where the church is contrasted with heretics (Jude and 2 Peter), the authors of these books make a clear delineation in behavior between the church and the heretics.

And of course Jesus said by this shall all men know that you are my disciples, that you have love for one another. It seems as though Jesus has the expectation that His true church would produce love and this love would be apparant to all men.

As a non-expert in the ECF, I have wondered if like say Iranaues makes a distinction between the conduct of the true church and the conduct of the heretics he is writing against.

Just thinking here…

 

[praise_Jesus_1]

Well in the Old Testament the Israelites were God’s chosen people or “The One True Church”, and throughout the Old Testament they fell short.

Using your criteria, a person living during this time would probably reject the true teaching of God.

 

[NotTooSmart]

NotTooSmart,
Seems reasonable, I would only advise that you would need to understand the criteria established by the Church or sect you are looking at for what it means to be a member or member in good standing. It wouldn’t be fair, for instance, to judge the Anglican Communion based on members of a “fringe” group called Anglicans for Human Sacrifice or something if the official group denounces their actions. The bigger the community, the more this becomes an issue.

You would also need to take into consideration the groups philosophical/theological views on how the individual is supposed to act morally, etc.

Good point. So when looking at Catholics it would be unfair to judge by Catholics for Choice and when looking at Assembly of God it would be unfair to judge by Bakker and Swaggart.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

NTS - good question.

I asked a similar one about ‘‘fruits’’ a while back.

Catholics claim to belong to and adhere to the church founded by Jesus. To those that are given much, much is expected.

My men were never interested in if I was having a good day or a bad day.

I had a rank. I had to perform to that rank. No exceptions.

Whether under fire or behind a desk.

I expected 100% from my men, all the time, in all circumstances, no exceptions.

They expected 110% from me. No exceptions. Period.

You were 100% in, or you were out. Simple.

If you claim to be part of the one true church founded by Jesus, you better be acting accordingly. Otherwise your claim is baseless.

In my opinion.

 

[josie_L]

NTS - good question.

I asked a similar one about ‘‘fruits’’ a while back.

Catholics claim to belong to and adhere to the church founded by Jesus. To those that are given much, much is expected.

My men were never interested in if I was having a good day or a bad day.

I had a rank. I had to perform to that rank. No exceptions.

Whether in the heat of battle or behind a desk at base.

I expected 100% from my men, all the time, in all circumstances, no exceptions.

They expected 110% from me. No exceptions. Period.

If you claim to be part of the one true church founded by Jesus, you better be acting accordingly. Otherwise your claim is baseless.

In my opinion.

The Jews were the chosen people of God who would bring forth the Messiah (salvation), and yet they constantly disobeyed Him, in fact, they killed most of their prophets . The CC is (and can be) the one true Church of Christ despite the moral failings of it’s members because Jesus instituted her (and She is guided by the protection of the Holy Spirit). And one must remember that when we say Universal Church, we mean the Church Militant (here on Earth), the Church Suffering (in purgatory) and the Church Triumphant (in Heaven), that is the true meaning behind “Catholic”.

 

[prodigalson12]

Well in the Old Testament the Israelites were God’s chosen people or “The One True Church”, and throughout the Old Testament they fell short.

Using your criteria, a person living during this time would probably reject the true teaching of God.

Most people do believe it or not. It’s said, many are called, few are chosen for a reason. These are very trying times, very spiritually dangerous times these days. I do think it’s important to note as to what sprang up exactly after Christ’s original church was established, then compare it to what it represents now, then compare the protestant denominations, and judge upon just how close to his ideal they all reach. #1 on this list, all of them are to blame, complete and total affluence is the norm, not the exception, this is in regards to the people that actually go there, not to the establishment, yet the latter in many cases can be p(name removed by moderator)ointed as well. Where this is different then and now is quite clear, we don’t want to admit it to ourselves, we want to bury our heads in the sand, we want to compare what we own and give compared to the guy living right next door, not the one in poverty. The status quo is the biggest thing that I have a personal problem with, and I feel often to be the only one that makes that distinction, now if it was how it was originally formed, there would be only a collective volume of wealth, equally shared, all contributed in full from all peoples, regardless of their own personal means. That ideal if embraced today would eliminate the status quo, eliminate poverty, eliminate so many things that are so wrong these days, yet still, we just don’t get it, we don’t want to get it, I guess we either love our miserable situation or honestly would rather look the other way, living within the world, as the world desires us to be.

 

[why_me]

The Jews were the chosen people of God who would bring forth the Messiah (salvation), and yet they constantly disobeyed Him, in fact, they killed most of their prophets . The CC is (and can be) the one true Church of Christ despite the moral failings of it’s members because Jesus instituted her (and She is guided by the protection of the Holy Spirit). And one must remember that when we say Universal Church, we mean the Church Militant (here on Earth), the Church Suffering (in purgatory) and the Church Triumphant (in Heaven), that is the true meaning behind “Catholic”.

The jews were chosen by god to be his people. Catholics do not have that distinction. They are members of a church and not a chosen people. There are many branches of Judiaism but still all jews can be considered the chosen people.

For catholics, their behavior is a symbol of their church. But the same can be said for oher branches of christianity. It does matter how church members live their life.