Who says one organization today is "The True Church"

[AmericanJosiah]

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.

Some thoughts…

1. I think Jesus’ prayer for unity might be understood in 4 ways:

A. Political/structural/institutional unity. As in having just The Bank of America (all other banks being illegal, invalid and nonlegitimate). I see nothing that suggests this, and certainly nothing that points to The Catholic Church as such (or the LDS or any of the cults - the claims of these each alone for self alone notwithstanding).

B. Unity of faith. This I believe exists (and always has). God is the source of faith, and this gift of faith IS IN CHRIST - which makes it saving and makes it true. All Christians have this faith.

C. Unity of love. IMHO, this is the primary focus of Jesus. “By this will all the world know you are my own…” “This is My commandment, that…” “Do not lord it over others as the Gentiles do…” Jesus spoke MUCH of love, He never so much as mentioned a denomination (or any organization being infallible/unaccountable). As I read Scripture, Jesus’ focus was on love and works - not absolute power and lording it over others. I think we have a LOT of work to do in this! Just read some of the posts here! A lot of work on ALL “sides.” In SOME ways, I think we’re making progress. But I’m not sure LOVE is the reason, I suspect relativism is the bigger reason.

D. Unity of dogma. There is one verse that suggests Jesus wants us to agree, dogmatically. We don’t. We never have. There are TWO issues here: WHAT do we need to agree on - what is the corpus of dogmas that must be accepted? We really struggle over this and it is probably the biggest difference among us. I wonder if The Nicene Creed was suppose to be just that? The second issue is how to bring about agreement on THOSE things, and how exacting MUST that be? IMHO, it’s sadly impossible to make ANY progress on that - there’s too much pride, individualism, institutionalism and exemptions of self by self. Any possibility of progress on this ended well over 1000 years ago. We have a LOT of work to do to restore some sense of humility, community and accountability - all requirements before we can even begin to address these issues in any formal sense.

IMHO, the church is US. All believers. Accross the centuries and continents. It is one, it is holy and it is catholic. It is the communion of saints, the mystical union of all believers and the community of faith. And yes, we don’t all dot our “i’s” and cross our “t’s” INDENTICALLY, we don’t all wrap our brains around our faith in identical ways and articulate all that exactly the same. Never have. I dobut we ever will. But as Lutherans, we lement that. PART of that is because we are sinful and prideful - perhaps not as humble and accountable and teachable as we need to be, too concerned with defending our power and pride rather than in being correct and (more importantly?) loving. And PART of that is because we are limited. We are not God. I think we are too quick to forget that we are called to be stewards of the MYSTERIES of God, not appointed by self to explain everything that God chose not to explain?

Thank you.

Blessings on your journey…

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[benidict]

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.

hi my friend. i would like to point out malachi 1:11. only one Church does fit this prophecy, the Catholic Church. also there was a central governing authority in the earliest days of the Church. it was the jerusalem Church. this is where paul went to have the issue of circumcision dealt with. it was peter who was the final authority on matters of faith and dogma at that time. there is historical evidence that peter was in rome, and that centralized governing authority still resides there. nothing has really changed in 2000 years. by the way, happy new year. and may God bless you and yours.

 

[Bill_Pick]

The only true Church is the Cathloic Church and you have two more both cults Mormons and the JW and I think Church of Christ dont know about it but I hear it is also

 

[onenow1]

It only takes a little common sense to know for instance it would be untenable[ridiculus] for there to be 1000 political parties.

“In attacking the Catholic Church, others sever their own roots.”
Author Unknown…

God Bless All
onenow1opcorn:

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

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.

Rory:

Hi American Josiah.

There are no demands that extend to non-Catholics that they accept anything with docility. What non-Catholic Church says it is okay to question the Nicene Creed, or their own ways of administering the sacraments/ordinances. Are you suggesting that one can remain Lutheran without being docile about the doctrines that distinguish Lutherans from others? Can they decide that pedobaptism is unbiblical and call themselves orthodox Lutherans? I don’t think so. Every community has to act as though it is infallible when it comes to certain core doctrines. The difference is that the Catholic Church claims the infallibility that practical discipline demands.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Hi again Josiah, you said:

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.

Rory:

The Bible doesn’t use the expression “Catholic Church”. Of course we would understand the New Testament Church described in the Bible to be what became the Catholic Church. I think the Scriptures at least imply that Christ is infallible and incapable of error. It is our faith in Him that leads us to the conclusion that the Church cannot err when certain conditions are met. The Holy Ghost is also infallible and cannot err. It is our faith in Him that makes us confident in the decisions of the ecumenical councils, just as much as at the first council at Jerusalem where the Apostle proclaims what it was that seemed “good to the Holy Ghost and to us”.

If Christ is the Head of His Church, and He promises to be with us to the end of the age, and with the Holy Ghost overseeing and guiding, what right do we have to say that the Church is wrong about something she has definitively taught? From my faith perspective, it is folly to oppose what the Catholic Church would teach. It is not with docility alone that I believe every doctrine the Church teaches, but with inquisitive faith that trusts in God who has promised not to forsake the Church. I look into what the Church teaches and while the reasons she gives are not necessarily infallible, I am always intellectually satisfied. No not just satisfied…edified. I happily believe whatever Christ’s Church teaches.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Some thoughts…

1. I think Jesus’ prayer for unity might be understood in 4 ways:

A. Political/structural/institutional unity. As in having just The Bank of America (all other banks being illegal, invalid and nonlegitimate). I see nothing that suggests this, and certainly nothing that points to The Catholic Church as such (or the LDS or any of the cults - the claims of these each alone for self alone notwithstanding).

Unless when God designed the church, He designed it with one central authority. Now the central authority might not be one church. Perhaps in the apostolic church the apostles were the central authority, the glue as it were that held the whole thing together.

This is a discussion worth having.

Maybe Peter held some type of primacy amongst the apostles, then again maybe not. If he did, from reading the new testament it seems to be a “first amongst equals primacy” (like the Orthodox have).

By the way, your comments as worded sort of imply you believe the Catholic Church to be a cult like the LDS. I don’t think that is what you really believe. While I agree that in theory the claim of “being incapable of error” would lead to a lack of accountability (if I believed myself incapable of error in my studies, I probably would forego studying for any exams), at the same time I can think of some important distinctions in this area.

B. Unity of faith. This I believe exists (and always has). God is the source of faith, and this gift of faith IS IN CHRIST - which makes it saving and makes it true. All Christians have this faith.

C. Unity of love. IMHO, this is the primary focus of Jesus. “By this will all the world know you are my own…” “This is My commandment, that…” “Do not lord it over others as the Gentiles do…” Jesus spoke MUCH of love, He never so much as mentioned a denomination (or any organization being infallible/unaccountable). As I read Scripture, Jesus’ focus was on love and works - not absolute power and lording it over others. I think we have a LOT of work to do in this! Just read some of the posts here! A lot of work on ALL “sides.” In SOME ways, I think we’re making progress. But I’m not sure LOVE is the reason, I suspect relativism is the bigger reason.

I agree here.

D. Unity of dogma. There is one verse that suggests Jesus wants us to agree, dogmatically. We don’t. We never have. There are TWO issues here: WHAT do we need to agree on - what is the corpus of dogmas that must be accepted? We really struggle over this and it is probably the biggest difference among us. I wonder if The Nicene Creed was suppose to be just that? The second issue is how to bring about agreement on THOSE things, and how exacting MUST that be? IMHO, it’s sadly impossible to make ANY progress on that - there’s too much pride, individualism, institutionalism and exemptions of self by self. Any possibility of progress on this ended well over 1000 years ago. We have a LOT of work to do to restore some sense of humility, community and accountability - all requirements before we can even begin to address these issues in any formal sense.

Actually your point about the Nicene Creed being a statement of essentials sort of makes a lot of sense. Why else would the ancient church go through the effort of formulating creeds except to draw a line in the sand and state these are the beliefs that we hold to be “very, very important”.

IMHO, the church is US. All believers. Accross the centuries and continents. It is one, it is holy and it is catholic. It is the communion of saints, the mystical union of all believers and the community of faith. And yes, we don’t all dot our “i’s” and cross our “t’s” INDENTICALLY, we don’t all wrap our brains around our faith in identical ways and articulate all that exactly the same. Never have. I dobut we ever will. But as Lutherans, we lement that. PART of that is because we are sinful and prideful - perhaps not as humble and accountable and teachable as we need to be, too concerned with defending our power and pride rather than in being correct and (more importantly?) loving. And PART of that is because we are limited. We are not God. I think we are too quick to forget that we are called to be stewards of the MYSTERIES of God, not appointed by self to explain everything that God chose not to explain?

I agree that the church is all believers. But at the same time that statement seems to be incomplete because it does not answer the question of how Jesus designed the church to be organized (if He had any design in mind at all).

 

[Nine_Two]

hi my friend. i would like to point out malachi 1:11. only one Church does fit this prophecy, the Catholic Church. also there was a central governing authority in the earliest days of the Church. it was the jerusalem Church. this is where paul went to have the issue of circumcision dealt with. it was peter who was the final authority on matters of faith and dogma at that time. there is historical evidence that peter was in rome, and that centralized governing authority still resides there. nothing has really changed in 2000 years. by the way, happy new year. and may God bless you and yours.

Not sure how only “one Church” fits Mal 1:11, any Church with membership spread among multiple nationalities could claim such.

And if St. Peter was the final authority in matters of faith and dogma, how come St. James chaired the Council of Jerusalem?

Finally a note to those who would quote Matt 16:18-19 to “prove” the infallibility of the Catholic Church based on the Patronage of St. Peter - read on a bit. Matt 16:23 says quite bluntly that St. Peter held no such powers.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I hope the title is fairly self-explanatory.

So is this one:

The Necessity of Being Catholic (Condensed)
by James Akin
chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm

1. To be saved it is necessary to be a Christian.
2. To be a Christian it is necessary to be a member of Christ’s Church.
3. To be a member of Christ’s Church it is necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church.
4. To be a member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
5. Therefore, it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

In this argument, the necessities are all normative necessities and the kind of membership being discussed is formal membership. The argument has a logically valid form (in fact, it expresses a variation on what is known as the “hypothetical syllogism” argument form), meaning that the truth of its conclusion depends only on the truth of the premises it contains.

When a Protestant objects to the above argument, it will be to the third proposition – that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded. Both sides agree on the other three points. While it is beyond the scope of this article to give a full proof of the third proposition (this is one of the major tasks of Catholic apologetics), we can offer a limited proof.

Both Protestants and Catholics agree that Christ founded some Church and that this Church will remain forever (Matt. 16:18). The question is whether this Church is a visible communion that can be identified or whether is it a purely spiritual communion made up of all the saved. If it is a visible communion, the Catholic Church is the only plausible candidate, since only this Church extends back far enough (the Eastern Orthodox communion did not finally break with Rome until the 1450s, a mere sixty years before the Protestant Reformation). We can thus give a limited argument for the third proposition by showing the Church Christ founded is a visible communion.

This is proven in Matthew 16:17-19, the passage in which Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist). Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.

First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18), yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ’s own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23). Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)

Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 – the only Old Testament parallel to this verse). But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.

Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline. But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. Indeed, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as “a gentile or a tax collector” (that is, as an unbeliever).

Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth. This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.

Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish. But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church’s members are in heaven and Christ’s heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature. Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.

There are thus abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Again Josiah, Hi. Thanks for the time you took in responding to my post. I hope I have time to finsih my response tonight:

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.

Rory:

The Ephesians are praised for identifying people in Rev. 2 who are falsely claiming to be apostles. Do you think it would be okay to dispute what an apostle taught? I don’t. If these people were truly apostles, they had to be followed! Would the Ephesians be praised for arguing with the clear teachings of Sts. Paul, or Peter, or John? No. A bishop can err individually. The Catholic Church teaches that individual bishops, validly ordained may nevertheless be ravenous wolves. We are not obligated to the teachings of an individual bishop if he should stray from the tradition of the Church. We are still admonished to hold them accountable.

You raise a valid question regarding the absence of recognition for the bishop of Rome in Scripture. I do not take the position that the papacy, as it became understood later, could have been known to all of the Apostles. It wasn’t until after it became common knowledge that St. Peter was martyred after serving in Rome, that theories were ventured that the apostolic authority unique to Peter was continued to his successors as bishop of Rome. I would admit that the Scriptures alone are inadequate to arrive at the modern papacy. It wouldn’t even have been possible for the Apostles to know where Peter was going to end up until he ended up there. I do not think the Apostles themselves had a clear grasp of the Petrine prerogatives.

A persecuted church was in survival mode. At the time St. John wrote the Apocalypse, it was in preparation for two centuries of baoptisms in blood. The individual mission churches were cut off in some cases from their mother churches, founded by the Apostles. There is no admonition to heed the ecumenical councils because there would not be another one for 200 years. The papacy was barely understood, although there are strong hints about Roman primacy even in Scripture…another time for that. It wasn’t clearly understood yet.

I identify the Catholic Church as the one true church in many ways. One that is very important is that I understand this Church to be the best plausible choice for being the living spiritual organism (as opposed to a human institution) that could qualify for having grown from infancy into the “beautiful lady” if you will, that she is today. I expect it to be difficult to identify the true church by comparing baby pictures with grown up pictures. But I think the Catholic Church has her birth certificates in order…More tomorrow, Lord willing.

A Blessed Lord’s Day to you, Josiah, and a continuing Merry Christmas to you!

Rory

 

[AmateurPianist]

Hey Amateur Pianist,
But that raises the question of why it even matters where we go, if there is not one true church?

Sorry to truncate your post, but that one sentence to me seems to be a good summary of what you are trying to say.

While I am skeptical that one organization that we see today is “The One True” church from God’s perspective, there is another perspective here. That is the perspective of the individual believer.

I think it is possible for both of these conditions to be true.
(1) God does not look upon any one organization today as “The Church” exclusive of all other organizations.
(2) God does have a plan for each individual believer that includes connecting the believer to one organization in the area in which they reside.

If it is a part of God’s plan that I as a believer become connected to organization ‘A’, then if at a later point I get ticked at organization ‘A’ and then drift to organization B, C, and D, then I do so to my Spiritual detriment.

 

[benidict]

Not sure how only “one Church” fits Mal 1:11, any Church with membership spread among multiple nationalities could claim such.

And if St. Peter was the final authority in matters of faith and dogma, how come St. James chaired the Council of Jerusalem?

Finally a note to those who would quote Matt 16:18-19 to “prove” the infallibility of the Catholic Church based on the Patronage of St. Peter - read on a bit. Matt 16:23 says quite bluntly that St. Peter held no such powers.

not among multiple nationalities all nationalities. only the Catholic Church can claim this. not the orthodox nor the protestants. tell me one place where the Catholic Church is not. james may have chaired but it was peter that spoke and had the final authority. God bless you and yours. and eventually, the orthodox will commune at the same table as the Catholics. its been moving that way for some time, and i hope to see it in my lifetime. as well as the anglicans.

 

[AmateurPianist]

It only takes a little common sense to know for instance it would be untenable[ridiculus] for there to be 1000 political parties.

In the United States there are 2 major political parties (and several minor one). Each major political party of course considers themselves to be the one true political party.

Now (the Moral Majority notwithstanding) I don’t think that God has a preferred United States political party that he chooses to bless above the others. At least that is what the evidence that I have observed suggests.

 

[benidict]

Sorry to truncate your post, but that one sentence to me seems to be a good summary of what you are trying to say.

While I am skeptical that one organization that we see today is “The One True” church from God’s perspective, there is another perspective here. That is the perspective of the individual believer.

I think it is possible for both of these conditions to be true.
(1) God does not look upon any one organization today as “The Church” exclusive of all other organizations.
(2) God does have a plan for each individual believer that includes connecting the believer to one organization in the area in which they reside.

If it is a part of God’s plan that I as a believer become connected to organization ‘A’, then if at a later point I get ticked at organization ‘A’ and then drift to organization B, C, and D, then I do so to my Spiritual detriment.

interesting. are you hinting at predestination of some sort? such as if God predestined me for one denomination, and i left it would be detrimental? do not agree with this view, but it is an interesting take. but also it is written, the truth shall set you free. there cannot be more than one truth. or is it you take that there can be more than one truth? just asking. im not trying to be disrespectful. just trying to understand where your coming from. hope your not drifting towards agnostism. have friends who are. and they are fascinating. but the whole thing they struggle with is finding anything solid or true. God bless you and yours.:hug1:

 

[Nine_Two]

not among multiple nationalities all nationalities. only the Catholic Church can claim this. not the orthodox nor the protestants. tell me one place where the Catholic Church is not. james may have chaired but it was peter that spoke and had the final authority. God bless you and yours. and eventually, the orthodox will commune at the same table as the Catholics. its been moving that way for some time, and i hope to see it in my lifetime. as well as the anglicans.

There are Orthodox Churches throughout the world, where you will find Catholic Churches you will find Orthodox Churches.

Actually St. James in verse 19 seems to have spoken with final Authority.

 

[peary1]

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.

There is only ONE CHURCH that has existed since the time of Jesus and the Apostles, and that is the CATHOLIC CHURCH. There is a continuity that can historically be proven, and it can be proven through the writings and lives of those recorded throughout the past two-thousand years, regardless of who broke away from it. I don’t see why this should be such a big problem.

 

[benidict]

:hug1:

There are Orthodox Churches throughout the world, where you will find Catholic Churches you will find Orthodox Churches.

Actually St. James in verse 19 seems to have spoken with final Authority.

probably why you and i would have so many agreements on other things. may want to start another thread. you can educate me on the differences between the Orthodox and the Catholic Church. must admit, 9 times out of ten i agree with your post. what really are the differences between us and what is the history of the schism between our people. it seems we are seperated by only a few degrees. God bless you and yours

 

[AmateurPianist]

interesting. are you hinting at predestination of some sort? such as if God predestined me for one denomination, and i left it would be detrimental? do not agree with this view, but it is an interesting take. but also it is written, the truth shall set you free. there cannot be more than one truth. or is it you take that there can be more than one truth? just asking. im not trying to be disrespectful. just trying to understand where your coming from. hope your not drifting towards agnostism. have friends who are. and they are fascinating. but the whole thing they struggle with is finding anything solid or true. God bless you and yours.:hug1:

I wouldn’t use the word predestination. It is just that God has a plan for each believers life, and a part of this plan would be plugging the believer into a church in the vicinity in which the believer lives.

I do not believe there is more than one truth. But in keeping with the subject of this thread, why does God necessarily provide this one truth to one organization while at the same time leaving the remaining organizations to fend for themselves in error to some degree?

 

[AmateurPianist]

There is only ONE CHURCH that has existed since the time of Jesus and the Apostles, and that is the CATHOLIC CHURCH. There is a continuity that can historically be proven, and it can be proven through the writings and lives of those recorded throughout the past two-thousand years, regardless of who broke away from it. I don’t see why this should be such a big problem.

Again this is true if and only if…throughout the flow of history…whenever the Church divided…no matter what the underlying issues of the division are…God always sided with the organization that retained the apostolic succession.

 

[AmateurPianist]

So is this one:

The Necessity of Being Catholic (Condensed)
by James Akin
chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm

1. To be saved it is necessary to be a Christian.
2. To be a Christian it is necessary to be a member of Christ’s Church.
3. To be a member of Christ’s Church it is necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church.
4. To be a member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
5. Therefore, it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

In this argument, the necessities are all normative necessities and the kind of membership being discussed is formal membership. The argument has a logically valid form (in fact, it expresses a variation on what is known as the “hypothetical syllogism” argument form), meaning that the truth of its conclusion depends only on the truth of the premises it contains.

Jimy Akin is actually a Catholic author I sort of like. He communicates well. Not that I always agree with him…just that he communicates well.

When a Protestant objects to the above argument, it will be to the third proposition – that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded. Both sides agree on the other three points. While it is beyond the scope of this article to give a full proof of the third proposition (this is one of the major tasks of Catholic apologetics), we can offer a limited proof.

Correct.

Both Protestants and Catholics agree that Christ founded some Church and that this Church will remain forever (Matt. 16:18). The question is whether this Church is a visible communion that can be identified or whether is it a purely spiritual communion made up of all the saved.

While I agree that the church consists of all the saved, this statement does not tell me how (if at all) God intended for this church to be organized.

If it is a visible communion, the Catholic Church is the only plausible candidate, since only this Church extends back far enough (the Eastern Orthodox communion did not finally break with Rome until the 1450s, a mere sixty years before the Protestant Reformation). We can thus give a limited argument for the third proposition by showing the Church Christ founded is a visible communion.

I think the Orthodox, Trail of Blood Baptists, and Restorationalist sects will disagree with being dismissed so easily.

I do not know what you mean “visible communion”. I assume that you mean exists in one and exclusively one organization.

This is proven in Matthew 16:17-19, the passage in which Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist). Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.

OK. Now I have never read this passage this way, but we will see.

Continued due to annoying length restrictions.