Which church is God's true church? Is it the Roman Catholic Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Which church is God’s true church? Is it the Roman Catholic Church?

I believe that it is the Roman Catholic Church.

What are your thoughts? Please support your opinions with facts. I will provide information, which all goes to support the fact that the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church, founded by Jesus Christ and the Church that God intended for man…

Peace 🙂

http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Image_Bank/Basilica.gif
The true church is not a building.
 
The true church is not a building.
Are you referring to the building where Saint Peter is buried? Everybody knows that the true Church is not a building…the true Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church…started by Jesus Christ. 👍
 
Again, I feel strongly that the confidence Paul had regarding his own election and that of the believers in the churches he planted can be had by all the faithful. I quote:

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:38-39).

Moreover, the language in John 15 cannot abrogate other passages, such as:

John 6:37-39, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.”

Phil. 1:6, “Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:”

1 Thess. 5:23-24, “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.”

2 Tim. 4:18, “And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

1 Peter 1:23, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.”

Romans 8:29, “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.”

Ephesians 2:10, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”

So the real issue here is not whether or not the “saints will persevere” but rather how can we know whether we’re a “saint”?

At Acts 13:48 it states:

When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

At Romans 10:9 it states:

That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

The Parable of the Sower (relevant part) explains:

When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart (Matt. 13:19).

I think when He uses the words “sown in his heart” he is saying the same thing as Paul in Rom. 10:9 (“believe in your heart”) and that He said in John 15:1-6. In other words these are people who had a sincere faith for a short time but it withered.

So I agree with your line of reasoning to a degree – but what gave Paul such confidence in not only his own election (which was merited because he was appointed by Jesus after all) but also in the election of the faithful in the churches he planted?

Why does Luke feel this confidence regarding those who believed (Acts 13:48)?

Either I’m being overly literal, which is possible. Or we need to reconcile these passages.

But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown" (Matt. 13:23).

Jesus draws a distinction between those who receive the word and understand it and those who heard the word, didn’t understand it, but yet something of Jesus was still sown in their hearts.

Obviously those who hear the word & understand it are given this understanding by God. They are the elect. However, what of those others? Jesus said because of their lack of understanding they will lose “what was sown in their heart.”

What did He mean by sown in their heart? Is this a deposit of the Holy Spirit? Is it psychological delusion? Or is it something entirely different? In other words how can we know we are one of the elect? This is why on a practical level Calvinists do not claim to know who are predestined and who is not.

The following passages also reflect the confidence of Paul:

Ephesians 4:30: “And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.”

Philippians 1:6: “And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.”

1 Peter 1:5: “[The elect] by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.”

Paul describes the Holy Spirit of God as a “seal” and expressed certainty that the good work began in us will bring us to completion. Peter said the elect are guarded by God’s power – for salvation.

These ideas have clear tension with other revelations, such as: names can be blotted out of the book of life, make our calling and election sure, etc. How can we make our calling and election sure if we’re saved by grace apart from works – or if the elect are predestined by eternal decree? The caveat seems to be that only the elect will understand these things. In other words only the elect will understand their affirmative duties. Only the elect are “sealed” with the Holy Spirit, even though the Spirit is omnipotent in the sense that He resides everywhere as a universal force for good (i.e. common grace). People can actually believe they’re saved without actually being saved. This much is confirmed by our common experiences.

It seems like God has always had a sort of secret providence. Giving commands He knew would not be obeyed (see Deuteronomy 31:16), choosing a people yet putting up a stone of offense they would stumble over, etc. However, the common thread has always been faith-based salvation. By faith Abraham was justified – by obedience his faith was perfected. Paul had certainty that the faithful he converted during his ministry would endure. He didn’t only frame this as a high level of confidence – but as a certainty.

Still Calvinists do not buy into the idea of OSAS (eternal assurance); and practically speaking we do not claim to know who the elect are. Our doctrine of Perseverance merely reflects the confidence and certainty of Paul. The doctrine is supported by other passages outside of the Pauline epistles, but again the passages where Paul expresses his certainty regarding election do not lend themselves to alternate readings, as do other verses – such as the ones you mentioned. There is also something to be said here about the mysteries of the Trinity & the working of the Holy Spirit in relation to the workings of God and Christ. All are manifestations of God and all work for one common purpose. However, there does seem to be a degree of universality to the workings of the Spirit even in the non-elect. There are ideas at tension with one another that must be simply accepted as mystery. It is clear, however, that we are saved by grace, chosen before the founding of the world, and we may have the confidence and certainty in our own election that Paul expressed so fervently. It is also clear that Paul wanted us to have this certainty and therefore it must be a good thing to posses. It is faith in not just the existence of God and Christ and His sacrifice and resurrection, but also in the righteousness of God; a trust that God will keep His promise to us. It seems that this level of trust in and reliance on God and a high view of His sovereignty and providence really gives us the fortitude to endure.

Apologies for the long post (I had to shorten it a couple times to get under the 10,000 character limit). It seems it is difficult for me to discuss this topic with a semblance of brevity 🙂
I think I better answer this is in the OSAS thread. 🙂

God Bless,
Michael
 
The true church is not a building.
In NO way do Catholics think our faith is based on a building.
If every Catholic ‘thing’ turned to dust in an instant, it does not change the Catholic Church at all.

michel
 
.
If we look at Eph. 1:4-5 for example, we learn predestination is true.
that is waht is wrong with private interpretation… a lot of those who do their own interpretation seem to build a whole religous system (“church”) on one or two scripture passages, seeming to totally ignore others that contradict them…
Not only did God predestine to salvation all who will be saved, but we learn it was a past act (completed before the founding of the world).
Then why did Jesus have to die on the Cross??
if we turn to John 3:18 we learn those who will not believe are not only condemned, but condemned “already” (again, a past act).
Again, you are misintepreting. They are condemend because of their unbelief (not accepting Christ).

The only “predestination” is for those who know and love Jesus and are committed to him… but even thye can lose Him if they, say… get tired of following him… or what have you. It just is not likely that anyone who really knows jesus is going to do that… That would be like trading in your diamond wedding ring for a cheap plastic imitation one… so the only predestination (so called) is that once one has found (realy found) Christ, s/he is not likely to fall away… eternally…

incidentally, i didn’t really find Jesus in a complete way until i got back into the Church. His Real Presence is There… and ONLY There…
 
In NO way do Catholics think our faith is based on a building.
If every Catholic ‘thing’ turned to dust in an instant, it does not change the Catholic Church at all.

michel
But why did Jimmy B post a picture of a building when speaking about God’s true church. The Roman Catholic Faith is not the savior. The person and work of Christ is our only hope. Our personal religious idols of the heart cannot save us,
 
why the need to insult people?

this rudeness tends to prove that… as mentioned in another thread… you Protestants (the rude ones anyway) will spend more time in Purgatory than Catholics… :hypno:
Not if i’m wearing the Brown scapular…👍
 
But why did Jimmy B post a picture of a building…
Speaking of buildings, when is the Protestant Church giving us Catholics our buildings and property back that were stolen from the Catholic Church?

What are your thoughts regarding, Hospital Buildings, Schools and University buildings, Fire Station and Police Station buildings and so on and so on….should stop using them?

Is it just “Catholic” buildings that you have a problem with?

The Reform Church doesn’t own or use any buildings?

I already posted that I know and every other Catholic knows that the Church is not the buildings, your comment here is dumb and it seems to me that you are just causing trouble now.

Be nice and be honest.
 
But why did Jimmy B post a picture of a building when speaking about God’s true church. The Roman Catholic Faith is not the savior. The person and work of Christ is our only hope. Our personal religious idols of the heart cannot save us,
It was a picture of a crowd … THIS is the church … the BODY of Christ … the BODY of the savior.

michel
 
But why did Jimmy B post a picture of a building when speaking about God’s true church. ,
Because (assuming it was a picture of a Catholic Church?) the the Real Presence of Christ is There…

And ONLY There…***
 
Not if i’m wearing the Brown scapular…👍
Simply wearing a Brown Scapular wouldn’t help you at all, unless you made major changes. First, it wasn’t promised that anyone who put it on was saved, you have to be enrolled in their order, in the Confraternity of the Scapular. The promise of our Lady presupposes cooperation with God’s grace, and cooperation by you or anyone is not guaranteed. By the way, one can’t argue that someone wearing the scapular will be moved irresistibly to repent at the end–that would deny free will. This has been promised to those who faithfully wear the scapular: “Those who die wearing this scapular shall not suffer eternal fire.” This must not be understood superstitiously or magically, but in light of Catholic teaching that perseverance in faith, hope and love are required for salvation. The scapular is a powerful reminder of this Christian obligation and of Mary’s promise to help those consecrated to her obtain the grace of final perseverance.

No one should undertake it who is not spiritual prepared to live in accordance with it. Is this something you’re willing to do?
 
Again, you are misintepreting. They are condemend because of their unbelief (not accepting Christ).
I will only deal with this one because I’m preparing an answer to Michael on a related topic & I don’t want to be overly redundant.

However, no I’m not misinterpreting. Of course John 3:18 states condemnation is because of unbelief. However, the use of the word “already” tells us something interesting – which is God foreknew their unbelief and has “already” condemned them “because of it.”

Accordingly we must now decide whether this foreknowledge was the result of decree or the result of God simply looking down the tunnel of time to see what our choices will be.
 
But why did Jimmy B post a picture of a building when speaking about God’s true church. The Roman Catholic Faith is not the savior. The person and work of Christ is our only hope. Our personal religious idols of the heart cannot save us,
I think he is just very proud of his Romanism. I agree that a building does not save, an our personal religious idols of the heart cannot save us. But, I do not think that Jimmy’s building is a “personal religious idol of the heart” either. It is a structure that reflects a faith of which he is very fond.

The person and work of Christ, our only hope, is not separated from the Church. In fact, Jesus identifies Himself completely with His Church. This is why Catholicism teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church. Those who are in Christ are in His Church. One cannot be saved outside of Christ.
 
Not if i’m wearing the Brown scapular…👍
I suppose that a rude, inconsiderate, and sarcastic remark is understandible, since you are responding to a critical remark made to you. However, must you lower yourself? I see that another member has replied to your spurious remark, so I will leave it at that. Such a statement reflects a faithless superstition, and we all know faithless superstitions will save no one.
 
that is waht is wrong with private interpretation… a lot of those who do their own interpretation seem to build a whole religous system (“church”) on one or two scripture passages, seeming to totally ignore others that contradict them… Then why did Jesus have to die on the Cross??
Again, you are misintepreting. They are condemend because of their unbelief (not accepting Christ).
Hey Distracted:

If you’re interested here’s a post I just finished discussing perseverance (if you look back on the page or two prior in that thread we discuss the topic quite heavily). I assume you will disagree – but if you’re interested (link here)
 
Therefore, since the time of this life is a time for repentance, the mere fact that a sinner who desires to return to God can still live, proves that one is accepted by Him. For here in this life is always present freedom of choice. Free will, then, is founded upon the possibility of the acceptance or repudiance of the above mentioned way of life and death. A person possesses the ability to chose whenever one wishes.
St. Gregory Palamas, Treatise on the Spiritual Life
 
Do the women in your church cover their heads?
They should darn it … kidding.

Actually the only mention of this practice in the NT is not in the pastoral epistles (Timothy & Titus) but rather at 1 Cor. 11:2-26 (there is a whole discourse by Paul).

One verse reads:

Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? (1 Cor. 11:13).

Paul equates long hair with head covering (as if it can act in replacement of a head covering). However, the choice is apparently given to us (it seems as if Paul believes head covering to be a sound practice and is making a case for it – but he is not imposing it as a hard rule).
 
it seems as if Paul believes head covering to be a sound practice and is making a case for it
He makes a good case for it. Personally, I think it should be observed. It always looks proper to me when I see a woman with her head covered in Church. My wife would never thinik of attending the Divine Liturgy without a head covering. 🙂
 
Therefore, since the time of this life is a time for repentance, the mere fact that a sinner who desires to return to God can still live, proves that one is accepted by Him. For here in this life is always present freedom of choice. Free will, then, is founded upon the possibility of the acceptance or repudiance of the above mentioned way of life and death. A person possesses the ability to chose whenever one wishes.
St. Gregory Palamas, Treatise on the Spiritual Life
I disagree with this paragraph in its entirety. First, the notion that by “the mere fact that a sinner who desires to return to God can still live, proves that one is accepted by Him” is just out of sorts.

Moreover, the good saints opinion regarding free will seem more like opinion rather then hard theology. Pure and simple, Paul preached that we are saved by grace and that we do not come to God of our initiative. Many men throughout history have gone through lengths to preach free will. They’ve created an elaborate multi-step process to put man in control, which has no real basis.

The Arminian idea, for example, is as follows:
  1. God’s prevenient grace is given to all mankind. It enables everyone to choose between Christ and death.
  2. Then, with this equally imputed prevenient grace all are given the choice, life and death. It then depends on their decision.
  3. Now we must endure through a series of momentary choices we make.
The free willists think this is more “just” than Calvin’s theory, while the opposite is true.

If we’re going to think that God will allow for others outside of the body of Christ that exists in the temporal sense (those who have enduring faith during their lifetimes) then isn’t it better to understand this in the way Scripture enumerates it?

For example, at Rev. 20 we learn those in Christ are judged differently and separately than those who are not. We are blessed, the saints become co-rulers with Christ and assist in judgment. The rest are judged at the “second death.”

The “dead in Christ” will arise first (see 1 Thes. 4:16). This is the “first resurrection” (see Rev. 20:6). But then all the rest are resurrected and judged according to their deeds (see Rev. 20:11-15). Then death and Hades are destroyed along with those not found in the book of life.

We don’t know if there actually will be anyone whose name will not be in the book of life. There’s ample argument in the Christian community over the usage of the word “eternity” with regards to torment and punishment (the word in Greek does not necessarily mean the same thing our word for eternity means). Even in my own reformed community some hold this sort of hypothetical universalistic viewpoint (advocated by Karl Barth, who is called by many one of the greatest theologians in contemporary history, he was called one of the most important Christian thinkers of the 20th century by Pope Pius XII, which was frankly surprising to me but it’s true). I do not agree with Barth in his characterization of election; but I mention him to simply show there is a divergence of views regarding this topic in the reformed community.

Rather than take this view – you want us to believe that those who never had an opportunity to hear the Gospel message, because of the cards they were dealt in life, somehow had the same chance at faith in Christ as you and I have? That’s just unfathomable and Paul tells us this is untrue (see Romans 10:14). All aspects of grace are not universally given to mankind – that is the most unjust idea I can think of & one of the main things that drove me to the reformed perspective. I do not think these folks will be tossed in some lake of fire arbitrarily. However, I also do not walk under the delusion that they had the same chance I did at accepting a Jesus they never learned exists by no fault of their own.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top