Who says one organization today is "The True Church"

[AmateurPianist]

I hope the title is fairly self-explanatory.

By the church, I do not mean that only card carrying members of this organization have eternal life. I do mean that some certain graces or gifts are only available to those within the organization and that it would be to the benefit of every Christian to be a part of this organization.

To get this started, I like to brainstorm. These are possibilities that I have heard along the way. Any additions to my possibilities are welcome.

If one organization today is “The True Church”, I have come up with the following logical possibilites:

• The Catholic organization is “The True Church”.
• The Orthodox organization is “The True Church”.
• A restorationalist organization (Mormon, JW) is “The True Church”
• The trail of blood theory, i.e. “The True Church” was underground for a certain period of time and now exists today in one form or another (most commonly in independent, separatist, fundamentalist Baptist)
• A trivial possibility that nobody believes: “The True Church” is one Protestant organization.

If no one organization today is “The True Church” I have come up with the following possibilities

• What we see today is compatible with how Jesus designed the church.
• What we see today is not compatible with how Jesus designed. Therefore what we see today is a result of sin.

There of course are sub possibilites under these two. Two that I have come up with in the “not compatible” category are

• Jesus designed local organizations only. Centralization and denominations are outside of His design and therefore sin.
• Jesus designed one centralized church. Because of sin, this once centralized church fragmented. As a result Jesus can not bless the individual fragments in the same way He could bless the one church.

Anyway, that is what I have come up with. Nothing really original here (I’m not that original), just assorted theories that I have heard along the journey.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Some thoughts…

The issue of whether an organization is “true” can be understood in two very different ways. It can be “correct” in the sense that what self teaches/claims/does is correct. This is an issue of truth. The other is whether that organization is valid, legitimate. They are actually unrelated but the distinction is often blurred. President Obama may be the legitimate president of The United States but that doesn’t make all he thinks, says or does “correct” (much less infallible/unaccountable).

Sometimes, a teacher (person, congregation, denomination - whatever) needs or desires to be accepted as the sole and infallible (and thus unaccountable) authority, so that whatever self says is simply accepted. BUT, such desires/needs to rebuke as wrong everyone else - thus it/he/she must establish SOME way for self exclusively to be exempt from accountablity BUT all others ARE accountable. Self exclusively is to be embraced with docility, but all others are to be examined and condemned if wrong (and if they disagree with self, they are - by definition).

In my study of cults, this is one of the strongest central themes, one of the strongest common denominators among them. The organization (or leader thereof) speaks for God and is especially protected and lead by God - and infallibly follows His lead. Thus, it is argued, self MUST be correct. But since no other was founded by God or speaks for God or is especially protected and lead by God, all others ARE potentially errant and thus are accountable. What self alone teaches (since it is infallible) becomes the “norm” to which all others are judged.

In the cults, a leader or organization simply declares self alone to be “true” typically in both senses - correct and valid. It alone has Authority/power/lordship THUS it alone is correct (in fact, usually the claim is that self alone is incapable of error, infallible - and thus unaccountable - with the emphasis on self since all others must still be regarded as potentially errant so that self can condemn all others)

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[Nine_Two]

• What we see today is not compatible with how Jesus designed. Therefore what we see today is a result of sin.
• Jesus designed local organizations only. Centralization and denominations are outside of His design and therefore sin.

This would be pretty close to the Orthodox position. I’m not sure I’d say Centralization is sin in and of itself, however it can certainly lead to sin.

The Temporal Church is the collection of all the local Churches which maintain communion with each other, none having command over another.

 

[AmateurPianist]

This would be pretty close to the Orthodox position. I’m not sure I’d say Centralization is sin in and of itself, however it can certainly lead to sin.

The Temporal Church is the collection of all the local Churches which maintain communion with each other, none having command over another.

This is interesting, because I would not have guessed this would be the Orthodox answer. But then again, I am not totally familiar with Orthodoxy.

Do the Orthodox claim themselves to be “The One True Church”?

Aren’t the Orthodox centrally organized themselves? Isn’t there an Orthodox patriarch or something?

Pardon me if I sound really stupid because on the subject of the Orthodox I probably am.

 

[Harpazo]

Didn’t all Protestant churches see themselves as “The True Church” up until about 75-100 years ago? That explains why virtually all Protestant churches believed in closed communion until about the 1960s or there about.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[AmateurPianist]

.
In the cults, a leader or organization simply declares self alone to be “true” typically in both senses - correct and valid. It alone has Authority/power/lordship THUS it alone is correct (in fact, usually the claim is that self alone is incapable of error, infallible - and thus unaccountable - with the emphasis on self since all others must still be regarded as potentially errant so that self can condemn all others)

Are you claiming that Catholicism is a cult? It could be easily taken that way methinks.

I have observed though that in any system, if a source is set up as “incapable of being incorrect” that a consequence is a lack of accountability. Which to me is not a good thing.

Unless, of course, that source is actually “incapable of being incorrect”.

But that is kind of a separate issue.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Didn’t all Protestant churches see themselves as “The True Church” up until about 75-100 years ago?

Again, it depends on what you mean by “true.” Yes, I think that MOST denominations STILL think that what they officially and formally teach is correct (or they likely wouldn’t teach it, don’t you think?). But if you mean “true” in the sense of valid or legitimate, then I know of no Protestant denomination that has ever held to that position, as if it ALONE is THE sole legitmate church (or even the church at all in the narrow sense).

.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Didn’t all Protestant churches see themselves as “The True Church” up until about 75-100 years ago? That explains why virtually all Protestant churches believed in closed communion until about the 1960s or there about.

I dunno. I don’t know of any who make that claim today…except maybe your independent, separatist, (KJV only maybe), fundamentalist Baptists. To me the separatist sort of implies you are claiming one true church status for yourself.

I grew up in the Methodist church and it always had open communion. So did my grandmothers Baptist church. Yeah small sample size I know.

 

[Nine_Two]

This is interesting, because I would not have guessed this would be the Orthodox answer. But then again, I am not totally familiar with Orthodoxy.

Do the Orthodox claim themselves to be “The One True Church”?

Aren’t the Orthodox centrally organized themselves? Isn’t there an Orthodox patriarch or something?

Pardon me if I sound really stupid because on the subject of the Orthodox I probably am.

The Orthodox have many Patriarchs, the best known is The Ecumenical Patriarch (aka the Patriarch of Constantinople), who holds the title “First Among Equals”, which essentially a “chairman” title, he chairs meetings of all the Patriarchs but nothing more. However each of the 15 (or 14 depending on who you ask) autocephalus (self headed) Churches governs and directs itself under its own leader - either a Patriarch, a Catholicos (Georgia), or a Metropolitan. The various Churchs may also have autonomous (self directed) branches which means they are headed by a Metropolitan who is appointed by the head of their Mother Church (one of the 14 or 15).

The various Churches may have different degrees of centralization, although as far as I know even the most centralized doesn’t approach Rome in the degree of centralization. My own Church is pretty decentralized, although this may be affected by the fact that I live in an Archdiocese that the Church has in the past made clear it wants to see have autonomy or autocephaly in the future.

By the way, the “14 or 15” number is a result of a dispute over the status of the Orthodox Church in America, which claims to be autocephalus, and which is recognised as such by a number of other Churches. However other Churches recognise it as simpy an autonomous branch of the Russian Orthodox Church. All agree that it is fully Orthodox in either case.

Don’t worry about sounding stupid when asking questions about the Orthodox Church(es). Most people tend to know very little about them, if they know anything at all. When I told my parents I was converting my mother thought I was converting to Judaism.

 

[Harpazo]

Again, it depends on what you mean by “true.” Yes, I think that MOST denominations STILL think that what they officially and formally teach is correct (or they likely wouldn’t teach it, don’t you think?). But if you mean “true” in the sense of valid or legitimate, then I know of no Protestant denomination that has ever held to that position, as if it ALONE is THE sole legitmate church (or even the church at all in the narrow sense).

.

Well, didn’t the Lutherans think they were the sole legitimate church when they broke from Rome? Lutheran and co. had some nasty things to say about RC doctrine. Then Calvin thought he had the true faith and others were wrong; Zwingli, too. I would agree that most Protestant denominations do not profess this idea today, but most (if not all) did profess it at one time. Otherwise, why would a person join that particular church?

I’m fairly certain that the Campbellite churches (Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, etc) still profess that they are the true church. The World Wide Church of God did profess it at one time. The SDAs did, but I don’t know if they still do or not.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[AmateurPianist]

Again, it depends on what you mean by “true.” Yes, I think that MOST denominations STILL think that what they officially and formally teach is correct (or they likely wouldn’t teach it, don’t you think?). But if you mean “true” in the sense of valid or legitimate, then I know of no Protestant denomination that has ever held to that position, as if it ALONE is THE sole legitmate church (or even the church at all in the narrow sense).

OK let me clarify one point.

For the purpose of this thread, by “true” I do not mean “believing what they teach is true”.

By definition any organization must believe what they teach is true. That implies that all other organizations to the effect that they disagree teach what is not true.

By true, that the organization believes that the relationship of this organization to all other organizations is a “superior–>inferior” relationship in the eyes of God.

This implies that there are some benefits that God provides only to members of the organization, but not to those outside of it. That also implies it would be to the Spiritual benefit of everybody to belong to the organization and to the Spiritual detrament to all who are outside of the organization.

I see as I think about it I will probably have to clarify my definitions more.

 

[Harpazo]

Don’t worry about sounding stupid when asking questions about the Orthodox Church(es). Most people tend to know very little about them, if they know anything at all. When I told my parents I was converting my mother thought I was converting to Judaism.

My mom did, too!

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[AmateurPianist]

For example, here is a link to a restorationalist group that claims itself to be the one true church. I think they are a spinoff of Herbert W. Armstrong.

It looks like they have a sort of revamped “Trail of Blood” theory of the church.

 

[Rence]

I think a member any religious organization is going to say they belong to the “True Church”, otherwise, the member wouldn’t be a member of that religious organization. They must believe that something is true of that one religion that is not true of others, or they wouldn’t be dedicated to that faith. So I’m sure you’ll get a lot of interesting and well thought out answers from various believers.

I am not a theologian by any means, but as you asked, I’ll answer as it was taught to me.

That said, the Catholic Church teaches it is the True Church because the Apostles received direct instructions from Christ Himself, who instructed them to preach everything he taught. No other church can claim that. And if they do, I just don’t know how they could. Perhaps someone from such a denomination who claims this can explain how.

Continuing, the Apostles spread His teachings, as promised by the help and protection of the Holy Spirit. Part of that promise was the fact that even though individuals may may mistakes, the Church cannot. The Apostles then appointed pastors to govern different regions. The Catholic Church is the only Church whose pasters were direct successors to the Pope and prove it by pointing to Matt 18:18-20 which reads:

**18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. **

It was the first Church and the other Christian denominations branched out from her. And while some of them say they branched out because the CC became corrupt, we look to the scriptures for proof that though individuals can become corrupt, the CC cannot. It was afforded that Grace uniquely in Matt 16:18,19 and 1 Tim 3:15

Matt 16:1819: 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. and

1 Tim 3:15
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.

Therefore, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, how can any other Church claim to be the One True Church? By breaking off from the Catholic Church, and forming their own, they broke the line of succession that is unique to the Catholic Church and they forfeited the benefits described in the above quotes by doing so.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

OK let me clarify one point.

For the purpose of this thread, by “true” I do not mean “believing what they teach is true”.

By definition any organization must believe what they teach is true. That implies that all other organizations to the effect that they disagree teach what is not true.

By true, that the organization believes that the relationship of this organization to all other organizations is a “superior–>inferior” relationship in the eyes of God.

Then, as far as I know, there is primarily only one - The Catholic Church.

Now, again, I think that most (if not all) denominations think it is more CORRECT than any other - and EXCLUSIVELY VIS-A-VIS THAT SINGULAR ISSUE - more “approved” by God, but that’s not the “valid” or “legit” issue that I think you sense.

Protestantism typically embraces that the church is Christians - all believers, in all ages, in all places; the one and holy and catholic church; the communion of saints, the mystical union of all believers; THE church is not a denomination. I’m sure there are small and rare exceptions to that, however.

This implies that there are some benefits that God provides only to members of the organization, but not to those outside of it.

Well, during my study of the cults (where this concept is foundational and very common), the “benefits” are via some Leader or well defined leadership: he or it is especially endowed, protected, guided so that it CANNOT err (at least under some conditions) so that he or it is to be accepted with docility as infallible and thus unaccountable. But, all others do not have all this - so this extends to no other, thus all OTHERS are potentially errant and thus ARE accountable. But the thing to keep in mind is that the MEMBERS of that cult are NOT in ANY SENSE “lead” or protected, they need to say in connection with the cult or cult leader (or leaders) - docilic and obedient to it or them. It is a benefit to THEM in the sense that they have infallible Truth proclaimed to them (and with no need to investigate such) and are infallibly lead, but the things the cult claims are for ITSELF, not for those IN the cult. There’s a shart distinction between the unquestionable, infallible organization and the members of the cult who ARE fallible, accountable and thus must accept docilicly whatever the cult (or its leader/leaders) say.

.

 

[Seno_Ryan]

The Catholic Church is one true Church of God due to apostolic succession. Even though some Christian denominations may contain some elements of truth in doctrine, the Catholic Church has the fullness of Truth handed down from the Apostles and preserved by the Power of the Holy Spirit. No other denomination can claim this!

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

I hope the title is fairly self-explanatory.

By the church, I do not mean that only card carrying members of this organization have eternal life. I do mean that some certain graces or gifts are only available to those within the organization and that it would be to the benefit of every Christian to be a part of this organization.

To get this started, I like to brainstorm. These are possibilities that I have heard along the way. Any additions to my possibilities are welcome.

If one organization today is “The True Church”, I have come up with the following logical possibilites:

• The Catholic organization is “The True Church”.
• The Orthodox organization is “The True Church”.
• A restorationalist organization (Mormon, JW) is “The True Church”
• The trail of blood theory, i.e. “The True Church” was underground for a certain period of time and now exists today in one form or another (most commonly in independent, separatist, fundamentalist Baptist)
• A trivial possibility that nobody believes: “The True Church” is one Protestant organization.

If no one organization today is “The True Church” I have come up with the following possibilities

• What we see today is compatible with how Jesus designed the church.
• What we see today is not compatible with how Jesus designed. Therefore what we see today is a result of sin.

There of course are sub possibilites under these two. Two that I have come up with in the “not compatible” category are

• Jesus designed local organizations only. Centralization and denominations are outside of His design and therefore sin.
• Jesus designed one centralized church. Because of sin, this once centralized church fragmented. As a result Jesus can not bless the individual fragments in the same way He could bless the one church.

Anyway, that is what I have come up with. Nothing really original here (I’m not that original), just assorted theories that I have heard along the journey.

Hey Amateur Pianist,

That is almost exactly how I arranged things in my mind when I was considering what church to join. When all the churches except those few you mentioned denied being the one true visible church, I took them at their word. Obviously they deny that any church qualifies. But that raises the question of why it even matters where we go, if there is not one true church?

I always saw in Scripture, the need for church discipline. Hebrews talks of obeying those that have the rule over you. There seems to be an assumption that we will either ourselves be the pastors and administrators, or we will have one to whom we must give our assent. Church discipline, in my opinion argues for the necessity of selecting a church. I can’t worship alone, or even with just my family. That the Gospel is intended to be acted out in community is very evident.

So…I think that rather than choose according to our own whims or even our own serious considerations, a church with rulers to obey, it needs to be the one true church. I don’t think we can be held to account for disobedience to people who think you can pick and choose where to go to church. If there isn’t one true church, why would you obey rather than leave? And that is exactly what happens to the churches that deny being one and true. They split and divide, and there is no practical structure whereby church discipline can be maintained beyond the local church.

I took Mormonism fairly seriously before being convinced that if they would work as hard at defending the Catholics against apostasy, as they do defending their own origins…they would be Catholic. The Restorationists, never, in my opinion, appreciate the difficulty of proving an Apostasy. One Mormon is a materialist and have a predisposition against the spiritual world posited by the Catholics, and so they readily accuse us of hellenizing. Another Mormon hears that some pope was nasty or some other exaggerated historical event hundreds of years after the apostasy needed to happen, proves that it did. That’s enough for them. Historically, they follow the Protestant line about how bloodthirsty and nasty the Catholics were. Then they mix it in with modern bias against church and state cooperation and they are happy with their theory. But they need to do a lot more homework if they will convince someone that doesn’t already have “the burning bosom”.

I remain impressed with LDS principles. I believe they take Protestantism to its logical conclusion. But they err by presuming that Protestantism was justified in splitting from Rome. In my opinion, Mormonism properly understood can serve as a very good antidote to Protestantism without offering any threat to the Catholic faith. That is why I continue to insist that Mormonism makes a lot of sense.

A lot of Catholics want to go after the Mormons the way the Protestants do. They’re polygamists. They are going to build a colony on the sun. They are becoming gods. Sensationalism. But at root, the major complaint is always simply that they have changed traditional teachings significantly. So they don’t believe the Trinity? Why would they? If the Catholics are apostate, doesn’t it make sense that a lot of truths were lost. I think they are more viable for being radically different from us, than if they were moderately different.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I always saw in Scripture, the need for church discipline. Hebrews talks of obeying those that have the rule over you. There seems to be an assumption that we will either ourselves be the pastors and administrators, or we will have one to whom we must give our assent. Church discipline, in my opinion argues for the necessity of selecting a church. I can’t worship alone, or even with just my family. That the Gospel is intended to be acted out in community is very evident.

So…I think that rather than choose according to our own whims or even our own serious considerations, a church with rulers to obey, it needs to be the one true church. I don’t think we can be held to account for disobedience to people who think you can pick and choose where to go to church. If there isn’t one true church, why would you obey rather than leave? And that is exactly what happens to the churches that deny being one and true. They split and divide, and there is no practical structure whereby church discipline can be maintained beyond the local church.

I took Mormonism fairly seriously before being convinced that if they would work as hard at defending the Catholics against apostasy, as they do defending their own origins…they would be Catholic. The Restorationists, never, in my opinion, appreciate the difficulty of proving an Apostasy. One Mormon is a materialist and have a predisposition against the spiritual world posited by the Catholics, and so they readily accuse us of hellenizing. Another Mormon hears that some pope was nasty or some other exaggerated historical event hundreds of years after the apostasy needed to happen, proves that it did. That’s enough for them. Historically, they follow the Protestant line about how bloodthirsty and nasty the Catholics were. Then they mix it in with modern bias against church and state cooperation and they are happy with their theory. But they need to do a lot more homework if they will convince someone that doesn’t already have “the burning bosom”.

I remain impressed with LDS principles. I believe they take Protestantism to its logical conclusion. But they err by presuming that Protestantism was justified in splitting from Rome. In my opinion, Mormonism properly understood can serve as a very good antidote to Protestantism without offering any threat to the Catholic faith. That is why I continue to insist that Mormonism makes a lot of sense.

A lot of Catholics want to go after the Mormons the way the Protestants do. They’re polygamists. They are going to build a colony on the sun. They are becoming gods. Sensationalism. But at root, the major complaint is always simply that they have changed traditional teachings significantly. So they don’t believe the Trinity? Why would they? If the Catholics are apostate, doesn’t it make sense that a lot of truths were lost. I think they are more viable for being radically different from us, than if they were moderately different.

Of course, the LDS and RCC have the same claims and the same sense of authority, although the LDS dropped it’s claim to infalliblity/unaccountability and its demand that all accept with docility whatever it says nearly 100 years ago. They just don’t take it as far as the RCC does. The RCC and LDS are on the “same page” at many key points in epistemology and eccleology - although their doctrines are certainly very different at most other points.

I agree with you that in Scripture, there is a sense of submission to those in authority. Now, it should be obvious that Scripture never says The Catholic Church has any authority whatsoever - over anyone or about anything, so let’s leave that aside. ANYTHING can claim ANYTHING. But it should be noted that never does Scripture say that ANYONE or ANY organization is infallible/unaccountable, incapable of error, or that we are simply to accept whatever it says “with docility.” This is NEVER said about ANY organization - OT or NT, and that includes The Catholic Church. There is a “flip side” to this. For, over and over and over, Scripture commands us to beware of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists and those that lead many astray (and that’s right, NONE is excluded from this, there’s NOTHING that says The Catholic Church is excluded from this examination). In Revelation 2:2 (IF this is concurrent with John’s revelation, then around 95 AD), Jesus praises the Ephesian Christians (laity, it seems) for regarding their teachers as accountable, for “testing” them and for finding them to be FALSE. He never mentions the pope over in Rome or the local Catholic bishop or how The Catholic Church is incapable of error and thus exempt from accountability. Friend, there’s simply a balance between authority and accountability that, IMHO, The Catholic Church has neglected (the LDS did at first, but I think at least THEORETICALLY now realizes). It’s not a question of absolute POWER, control, authority, lording over others. There is a flip side of humility, community, ACCOUNTABILITY. They belong together. The Catholic Church talks constantly about the Authority that it alone gives to it alone - infallible, unaccountable - and how everyone must accept “with docility” whatever it alone says. But it then applies some logic (?) to insist that if it alone is infallible and incaptable of error (in official matters of faith and morals) then accountability is moot in the case of just one - itself. In so doing, it circumvents the issue of accountability. Just accept whatever self alone says cuz self alone says that self alone has the authority to say it, and self alone cannot err because self alone cannot err so self alone cannot err when self alone says that self alone cannot.

.

 

[TheosisM]

Wait, the Catholic Church thinks that it is unaccountable or incapable of error? When did that happen?

 

[AmateurPianist]

The Catholic Church is one true Church of God due to apostolic succession. Even though some Christian denominations may contain some elements of truth in doctrine, the Catholic Church has the fullness of Truth handed down from the Apostles and preserved by the Power of the Holy Spirit. No other denomination can claim this!

This in a nutshell is what I understand is the teaching of the Catholic church.

And you are a “One True Church” for the purpose of this thread. You do claim a superior–>inferior relationship to all other Christian organizations out there. It would be to the Spiritual benefit of all Christians to belong to the Catholic organization. There are certain Spiritual giftings and benefits (example infallibility of leadership) which exist only in the Catholic organization.

I notice that what is assumed here is the governing metric of apostolic succession. And I observe that other organization that claim one true Church status for itself uses different governing metrics.

By governing metric I observe this underlying assumption.

At every point in time during history (no matter what the issues were underlying the division), whenever the church divided upon itself, God always sided with the division that retained what is called apostolic succession. From God’s perspective (no matter what the issues were underlying the division), the division that retains apostolic succession remains “The church” while the other divisions are now outside of “The church”.

And certain benefits (example papal infallibility) are only retained in the division that retains apostolic succession.

Now I don’t believe this.

As a Protestant I have heard two teachings:
(1) “The church” is all believers in Jesus Christ. Now while I still believe this is true in a sense, I also believe this is incomplete. It does not answer the question on whether God is OK with what exists today as the church with multiple organizations professing mutually exclusive doctrine. In fact, left alone, it sort of implies that God is cool with it.
(2) God designed only the local church. Any organization above the local organization is outside of what He designed. I question this because I do not understand how unity is maintained given this organization.

I am coming to believe the following, which I think one of the Lutheran members here articulated, at least in part.

The multiple organizations professing mutually exclusive doctrine that we see today is a result of sin and not what God designed. The sin, however, is on all parties of division. Therefore no superior–>inferior relationship between the dividing parties exists. Sin also has consequences. Therefore some of the benefits that God can and would give to an undivided church, He can not and will not bless a divided church with.

I could probably articulate this better, but this is what I am coming to believe.