What is the true church?

[Odell]

since we didnt get into to much detail of who is the true church and why bibleapologist believes he is the true church. in the thread he got started for fearing that we was geting off topic.

I thought it would be nice to start the thred he said he would be happy to respond too.

Now I want be able to respond much. I only do one or two threads a day. But I deffently will stop in and see what bibleapologist has to say on this issue. And how Catholics will respond to him.

thanks

 

[jemfinch]

The one he preaches in, of course. And that’s the only one!

Jeremy

 

[Catholic_Dude]

since we didnt get into to much detail of who is the true church and why bibleapologist believes he is the true church. in the thread he got started for fearing that we was geting off topic.

I thought it would be nice to start the thred he said he would be happy to respond too.

Now I want be able to respond much. I only do one or two threads a day. But I deffently will stop in and see what bibleapologist has to say on this issue. And how Catholics will respond to him.

thanks

Apparently any denomination that preaches “faith alone”, after that in regards to doctrine it really doesnt matter, here is a telling question on his webpage:
gideonsword.net/qanda/QandA/repent_forgiven.htm
He said I was forever saved by “FA” even though now Im Catholic and preach Catholic doctrine.

 

[Odell]

I cant get on his webpage for some reason.

Im hoping he is browsing the forums today. I have some extra time.

maybe we can convince him of the truth of the real presence if we can prove to him we are the true Church. And that we have the proper interpritation of scripture.

 

[Sabda]

Looking at that page I personally found this to be interesting.

Q Don’t these people have to repent to be forgiven?

A The answer is no. This idea that a person must repent of thier sins to be forgiven is intellectually satisfying (it makes us feel like we have done something to “make up” for what we have done wrong). This idea is really only man’s philosophy though, it is not an idea that is derived from the Bible.

 

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

I cant get on his webpage for some reason.

Apparently the server is down, it usually takes a few hours for their drives to scan for errors before it is up and running again.

Thank you for starting this thread Odell… I know a Baptist preacher named Odell, I’m guessing it’s not you though

Well, since we are here to talk about the “true Church” and not
repentance or OSAS; maybe we should start by discussing Matthew 16:18. Unless you have a better place to start.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Atreyu]

Odell,

Apparently the server is down, it usually takes a few hours for their drives to scan for errors before it is up and running again.

Thank you for starting this thread Odell… I know a Baptist preacher named Odell, I’m guessing it’s not you though

Well, since we are here to talk about the “true Church” and not
repentance or OSAS; maybe we should start by discussing Matthew 16:18. Unless you have a better place to start.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Well there are two places in the Bible where Jesus uses the word “church”. Matthew 16:18 is one of those, so I guess it’s a good place to start. The other instance is where Jesus is speaking of the authority of the church, in matters of dispute. He names the church as the highest authority on Earth in matters of dispute; “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” Matthew 18:17. If we are to go to the “true church” in matters of dispute, then the church must be visible, so that we know who to go to!

 

[bibleapologist]

Atreyu,

The other instance is where Jesus is speaking of the authority of the church, in matters of dispute. He names the church as the highest authority on Earth in matters of dispute;

It sounds like you would rather start at Matthew 18:17.

You are correct that Jesus is speaking of the authority of the Church… but not on matters of dispute. He was speaking of the authority He gave the Church in that certain circumstance (of a person who is sinning outwardly and refuses to accept rebuke).

First of all, the “church” in those verses is referring to a “particular called out assembly”… That is, a local church. That passage in no way refers to an all-inclusive governing body that oversees the local congregations.

Also that passage does not insinuate that the “church” has any authority in any matter of dispute. Jesus was giving the “local assembly” authority over themselves in such a case where one refuses to repent. They only have authority to cease fellowship with that certain person…

Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Matters of dispute among Christians was addressed by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:4-8. And he only said that disputes between Christians should not be taken before an unbeliever to judge, but a judge should be chosen from the church, and one who is esteemed least among them. This is a clear indication that in the Corinthian Church, there was not set in place a position of authority beforehand. And through Paul’s teaching in this verse it is clear that Paul recognized the absence of an authoritative position… and didn’t command or suggest that they elect one. He only said that if there is a dispute, select a person to judge that matter.

If we are to go to the “true church” in matters of dispute, then the church must be visible, so that we know who to go to!

If you are a member of a local assembly, according to Jesus in Matthew 18 in the case of a person who persisted in unrepented outward sin you would only have authority as a congregation to make the judgement to cease fellowship with that person.

If you have a dispute with another member of that assembly, according to Paul a judge should be chosen from the least esteemed of the church to settle the matter. I don’t remember Paul referring to a council, or archbishops, or a central governing body of any sort… The church at Corinth was an “independent church”.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[sven2131]

Matthew
Chapter 16

18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

There are hundrets of christians churches, with different trues, diferent styles, etc.
Jesus said my church, he didnt said my chruches.
just one true, one chruch that come from teh apostoles , one church in which he gave permision to forgive sins, in the apostoles.

There were other cases in which there were orders of the church taht went agaist teh pope, however they got reconciliaded with the pope.

When Luther went away form the chruch and made his own one, it was in a rebelious way, in defyance agaist the pope.

No good son go away from his mother house in a rebelious way or in a way of defiance.

However most of protestans churches still have also some qualities of the catholic church.

 

[Odell]

Atreyu,

It sounds like you would rather start at Matthew 18:17.

First of all, the “church” in those verses is referring to a “particular called out assembly”… That is, a local church. That passage in no way refers to an all-inclusive governing body that oversees the local congregations.

yes but this Church believes the same as the whole church. Its like if I go to my priest on a dispute he is hopfully going to agree with the whole Church. And give what the Church says not necesarly his opinion.

Also that passage does not insinuate that the “church” has any authority in any matter of dispute. Jesus was giving the “local assembly” authority over themselves in such a case where one refuses to repent. They only have authority to cease fellowship with that certain person…

I dont see your point. If Jesus gave AUTORITY to the local assembly (church) do you not think that the local assebly is going to agree with The Church as a whole? Keeping in mind that there is no partiallity.

Matters of dispute among Christians was addressed by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:4-8. And he only said that disputes between Christians should not be taken before an unbeliever to judge, but a judge should be chosen from the church, and one who is esteemed least among them. This is a clear indication that in the Corinthian Church, there was not set in place a position of authority beforehand. And through Paul’s teaching in this verse it is clear that Paul recognized the absence of an authoritative position… and didn’t command or suggest that they elect one. He only said that if there is a dispute, select a person to judge that matter.

yes but you cant just chose anyone from the Chruch it has to be someone who knows Church teaching.

do you think they would choose someone who dissagrees with the Church as a whole?

If you are a member of a local assembly, according to Jesus in Matthew 18 in the case of a person who persisted in unrepented outward sin you would only have authority as a congregation to make the judgement to cease fellowship with that person.

so are you saying if the man sins in Jesus assembly and this assembly dont like what this person is doing. He is sinninig and doesnt want to change for church teaching. We can cease fellowship with that person. But he can go to the Church of Corinthian and celibrate with Paul or whoever?

NO I would bet that the same person who dosent heed to Chruch teaching wouldnt be accepted in Corinthians Church either. because they belive the same sin is a sin. They acknowlege the same teachings. so the assembly does have athority over more than just its own little congregation. because they are part of the Church as a whole.

But today lets see how this would happen. my wife wants an abourtion and The Church says NO (this is a dispute). Thats ok she will just go to some non denomination where some times it is the redembtive thing to do.

some how I dont think that is how it happend in the apostles time
do you know why because.

they where One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[Verita]

Atreyu,

First of all, the “church” in those verses is referring to a “particular called out assembly”… That is, a local church. That passage in no way refers to an all-inclusive governing body that oversees the local congregations.

I’m curious as to how you know that the word “church” here is specifically referring to a “particular called out assembly”. Is it something to do with the Greek word? Because unless that definition is specific at that time to the actual Greek word used then I don’t know how you can come to that conclusion.

 

[Philthy]

Well there are two places in the Bible where Jesus uses the word “church”. Matthew 16:18 is one of those, so I guess it’s a good place to start. The other instance is where Jesus is speaking of the authority of the church, in matters of dispute. He names the church as the highest authority on Earth in matters of dispute; “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” Matthew 18:17. If we are to go to the “true church” in matters of dispute, then the church must be visible, so that we know who to go to!

Jesus also speaks, through Paul, of the Church in various places. One of those is 1Tim 3:15 in which the"household of god, which is the “church of the living god” is described as the “pillar and foundation of truth”. Any discussion of the church must include how it functions in this regard.

 

[Saint_Michael]

The true Church MUST be Apostolic, I can’t understand how anyone reading the Bible can think otherwise. The True Church has elders (priests) who are ordained by the laying on of hands, Bishops, and deacons. All of these must be able to trace their lineage to the original Apostles.

Hebrews 5:
"For every high priest chosen among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is best with weakness. Because of this he is bound to offer sacrifice for his own sins as well as for those of the people. And one does not take the honor upon himself, but he is called by God, just as Aaron was.

2 Timothy 4:

“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths”

1 Timothy 4:

“Do not negelct the gift you have, which was given by prophetic utterance when the elders laid their hands upon you”

Without a valid Apostolic priesthood, you are not Christ’s Church, the Bible is clear on this, Paul is clear to stear clear of any teaching that is not of the tradition of the Apostles. Without Apostolic succession, your claim to the true Church of Christ is without merit. The Bible makes this abundantly clear.

At least with the Mormon’s they recognized that Biblically they needed a valid priesthood, so hence comes Joseph Smith being granted that by Jesus by the laying on of hands. I don’t believe it for a minute but they understand the necessity.

 

[Odell]

( 1 Tim 3:15) “The Church the pillar and bulwark of the Truth.”

A pillar upholds and a bulwark defends. So the Church upholds and defends the Truth. Many people say all denominations are part of the Church. But how can we all defend the Truth if all of our beliefs on what is the Truth contradict each other? Does Truth contradict itself? Also notice that it is not the bible that upholds and defends the truth but the Church. Many people think that we cant have a Church without the bible but it is actually the other way around you cant have the bible without the Church. And the Church helps us decern scripture for truth. That’s why the bible says that the Church is the upholder of the truth instead of the bible. Because if not you have 33,000 telling you there interpretation of scripture. But all 33,000 differ in some way. God didn’t leave us with a divided Church he left us with a Church that has all truth and a Church that you can go to for that truth.

( Eph 1:22-23) “And he put all things beneath his feet and gave him as head over all things to the Church which is his body, the FULLNESS of the one who fills all things in every way.”)

The Church is the FULLNESS of the Truth. How does the fullness of the truth divide amongst 33,000 denominations. This verse sums up real well with (1Tim 3:15) “The Church the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”

We are CALLED to be one body (one Church) one faith. Not 33,000 plus bodies, faiths, flocks, churches, shepherds. And that is what we have 33,000 plus shepherds acting as pope for his own individual flock. Again this is not what Jesus left us with. He left us with the Church of (1Tim 3:15)

 

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

yes but this Church believes the same as the whole church. Its like if I go to my priest on a dispute he is hopfully going to agree with the whole Church. And give what the Church says not necesarly his opinion.

That is the Catholic Church opinion… and opinions have no place in elucidation of scripture. What you just described is not at all what the passage says, there is not even an allusion to a “unified churches” much less a definition of church meaning “all inclusive”.

I dont see your point. If Jesus gave AUTORITY to the local assembly (church) do you not think that the local assebly is going to agree with The Church as a whole? Keeping in mind that there is no partiallity.

If in fact Paul intended for the word “church” to mean a “unified whole”… yes I do think the local assembly would submit to that governing body… but we already know what the Catholic Church believes and how they operate, what we NEED to understand is how the early Church operated, and how Paul intended this passage of scripture. Paul intended the advise exactly how it was given… to the local Church.

This is a clear indication that in the Corinthian Church, there was not set in place a position of authority beforehand. And through Paul’s teaching in this verse it is clear that Paul recognized the absence of an authoritative position… and didn’t command or suggest that they elect one. He only said that if there is a dispute, select a person to judge that matter.

yes but you cant just chose anyone from the Chruch it has to be someone who knows Church teaching.

do you think they would choose someone who dissagrees with the Church as a whole?

Here you are assuming that there was in fact a “whole” unified Church. There wasn’t, and that is clear by the fact that Paul didn’t point to the authority of any governing body. Paul advised that a judge be selected from among them, which was a testimony to the fact that there was no governing body in place.

If you are a member of a local assembly, according to Jesus in Matthew 18 in the case of a person who persisted in unrepented outward sin you would only have authority as a congregation to make the judgement to cease fellowship with that person.

so are you saying if the man sins in Jesus assembly and this assembly dont like what this person is doing. He is sinninig and doesnt want to change for church teaching. We can cease fellowship with that person. But he can go to the Church of Corinthian and celibrate with Paul or whoever?

For illustrative purposes… yes. A person today that has been asked to leave a local church for a serious unrepented sin could very well go to another church and have fellowship. That is because each individual assembly is independent of one another.

NO I would bet that the same person who dosent heed to Chruch teaching wouldnt be accepted in Corinthians Church either. because they belive the same sin is a sin. They acknowlege the same teachings. so the assembly does have athority over more than just its own little congregation. because they are part of the Church as a whole.

You are holding fast to presuppositions that do not coincide with this particular passage. And in doing so you are attempting to correct the scripture with Catholic traditions.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Philthy, and Odell,

Jesus also speaks, through Paul, of the Church in various places. One of those is 1Tim 3:15 in which the"household of god, which is the “church of the living god” is described as the “pillar and foundation of truth”. Any discussion of the church must include how it functions in this regard

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

First, this verse is written so that Timothy would understand that the previous teaching from Paul was so that “thou mayes know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God”. In the previous verses Paul was talking about Bishops and Deacons… which are biblical offices of a local church

Second, Paul is referring to the “house of God” as the pillar and ground of truth. I think it would be quite a stretch to say the “house of God” means the “governing body”, or “all inclusive church”.

Third, the pillar is used as an illustration for something that “holds up the truth”, and the ground is used as an illustration for something that gives security and stability for truth. This verse in no way is alluding to the “church” in question as being the source of truth by making declarations. But that the church is to declare the truth as it already stands, and the source being Jesus Christ through the scripture.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

The Church is the FULLNESS of the Truth. How does the fullness of the truth divide amongst 33,000 denominations.

You have been listening to Kark Keating too much. That is a very deceptive statement. There are not 33,000 denominations… but there are thousands of independent churches scattered throughout the world, who, in their autonomy have the charge to proclaim the truth in thier communities.

You are giving these passages (esp. 1 Tim. 3:15) an all-inclusive tense when the passage, it’s immediate text, and the bible as a whole does not imply… rather these verses compared with other veses in the bible imply the direct opposite, that each individual church has the charge to be the pillar and ground of truth.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[geezerbob]

But that the church is to declare the truth as it already stands, and the source being Jesus Christ through the scripture.

John
www.gideonsword.net

John, some of Paul’s writings were probably around at the time, but after the dose of humility he received on the road to Damascus, I doubt that he would have been so arrogant as to proclaim his previous letters to be scripture. The teachings of Jesus Christ were passed along orally, although there probably were some private writings floating around. Therefore, I believe you should rethink your statement quoted above. There were no teachings of Jesus that were considered scriptural at the time.

On the subject of 30+ thousand denominations, I dislike that number, which I think was based largely on the number of IRS religious filings. Each Baptist church, for instance, is totally independent and has its own filing whereas many other denominations file by diocese or other larger group which contain a number of churches.

Regardless of the actual number of denominations, you are correct in stating that churches are to proclaim the truth. My question is how to determine which church is proclaiming truth when their proclamations differ from one another? Is it the truth according to Pastor so and so, the truth according to Bishop Doe, or the truth according to John?

Finally, I would like to repeat a question that was asked earlier, probably on another thread, that I have not seen you answer. You have come here and stated that the Catholic and most, if not all, other churches are wrongly interpreting the Bible and strongly imply that you alone have the ability to interpret it correctly. Would you please explain to us mere mortals here by what authority your interpretations are superior to those of anyone else or, more importantly, superior to the interpretations by the church which Christ founded?

 

[corvidae]

John,
My question would be “how can the church be the pillar and bulwark of truth if there are only regional churches and they do not have to agree with eachother on anything”

And is not Paul taking the place of a government in the Church. I mean, Paul is writing to many different places, telling them what to do, what to stop doing, etc. Is it not true that having, even a person who keeps the churches in contact with eachother and at the very least seems to have authority over them, dispels your entire idea of individual regionistic churches?

John in Revelations also writes to the Churches in his area, notice, he writes to individual churches, but all in the area that He himself took charge of. It is like a bishop writing to his diocese. John reprimands them, and commands them, not on his own whim, but so that they may be the Church of God.

Your idea that there were simply regional churches, and that is all there were meant to be does not hold up to scrutiny.

A lone Raven

 

[Odell]

Odell,
That is the Catholic Church opinion… and opinions have no place in elucidation of scripture. What you just described is not at all what the passage says, there is not even an allusion to a “unified churches” much less a definition of church meaning “all inclusive”.

Thats your opinion, its my opinion dadada. We can do that all day. The truth is thats all you have an opinion. But the question is who has the athority?

(2 Ptr 1:20) “no part of scripture is of personal interpretation.”
We need a guide.

Here you are assuming that there was in fact a “whole” unified Church. There wasn’t, and that is clear by the fact that Paul didn’t point to the authority of any governing body. Paul advised that a judge be selected from among them, which was a testimony to the fact that there was no governing body in place.

thats your opinion
( Eph 4:3-6) “Striving to reserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit as you were called one hope of your call; one Lord one faith, one baptism one God and Father of all who is over all and through all in all.”

(Jn 17:20-23) Jesus prays that we are one as He and the Father are one, and not only for the Church then but the Church today. Verse 20 “not only for them but for those who will believe in me through their word” Jesus and the Father do not contradict each other in any doctrine baptism, confession, faith, works, morals, ext.

For illustrative purposes… yes. A person today that has been asked to leave a local church for a serious unrepented sin could very well go to another church and have fellowship. That is because each individual assembly is independent of one another.

that is your opinion. By the way is that biblical? If not we just got your opinion again.

I recon he can pick up the bible too. And start his own denomination!

The only way he can return to any Church is if he is repentant.

A sin is a sin no matter what Church you go to. you cant pick you church because it fits yoiur theology.

Odell,
that each individual church has the charge to be the pillar and ground of truth.

really how can that be, if they all differ? Did Jesus leave us with individual Churchs that can decide for them selves what truth is? No he founded his church on the apostles and the apostles apointed others. who have the athority. Not someone who pickes up the bible 1500 years later and decides for himself.

hey one of the Catholic traditions is that we call these men fathers who are given the athority. That is very much biblical. Im guessing you dont call your preacher father do you?

something to consider with your search for the truth.

God bless