One true church?

[spanjo]

For those of you Christians who believe in absolute, universal, eternal truth. What is wrong with the idea of one true church. Surely they cannot all be true, right? Certainly God would have at least one true church. Infact, by logic, he could have no more than one true church. What are your thoughts?
I know most of you will say that it is grace that saves us not the church? True, it is grace that ultimately saves us? But, why a church in the first place with principles and ordinances? If There was one true church in Christ's time, why is it such a foreign idea that there would be one true church today led by prophets and apostles, with the same organization that existed in the primitive church, and with the same priesthood and authority?
The truth is the same for all of us (whether we believe it or not) right? So, what then are all of these conflicting churches teaching?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

The only church I would dare say even approaches fitting that description is Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, the oldest surviving sects of Christianity.

 

[spanjo]

The only church I would dare say even approaches fitting that description is Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, the oldest surviving sects of Christianity.

Neither of those have prophets or apostles as Christ called for in the organization.
I am not out to prove that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the only true church. I do not want to debate the validity of Mormonism, I just want to know what is wrong with the idea of one true church?

 

[Dan4reason]

Neither of those have prophets or apostles as Christ called for in the organization.
I am not out to prove that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the only true church. I do not want to debate the validity of Mormonism, I just want to know what is wrong with the idea of one true church?

There is nothing wrong with the idea at all. A church established by God, with his exact commands is not impossible assuming God exists. However, the communication between God and his church must be clear and understandable, there is no fuzzy area and no room for interpretation or subjectivity. God's commands must also have to be interpreted perfectly and any attempt to misinterpret them must be stopped.

 

[spanjo]

There is nothing wrong with the idea at all. A church established by God, with his exact commands is not impossible assuming God exists. However, the communication between God and his church must be clear and understandable, there is no fuzzy area and no room for interpretation or subjectivity. God's commands must also have to be interpreted perfectly and any attempt to misinterpret them must be stopped.

Agreed!

 

[spanjo]

I am supprised to not hear from any Christians! Am I to take it that you believe that there can only be one true church?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Neither of those have prophets or apostles as Christ called for in the organization.
I am not out to prove that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the only true church. I do not want to debate the validity of Mormonism, I just want to know what is wrong with the idea of one true church?

Like I said, nothing, but Orthodoxy and Catholicism are older, and hence have a more valid claim. Also, they may not have Apostles, but they do have the successors of the Apostles.

 

[Ben Masada]

For those of you Christians who believe in absolute, universal, eternal truth. What is wrong with the idea of one true church. Surely they cannot all be true, right? Certainly God would have at least one true church. Infact, by logic, he could have no more than one true church. What are your thoughts?
I know most of you will say that it is grace that saves us not the church? True, it is grace that ultimately saves us? But, why a church in the first place with principles and ordinances? If There was one true church in Christ's time, why is it such a foreign idea that there would be one true church today led by prophets and apostles, with the same organization that existed in the primitive church, and with the same priesthood and authority?
The truth is the same for all of us (whether we believe it or not) right? So, what then are all of these conflicting churches teaching?

Why does it have to be a church? Jesus was a Jewish man who gathered with his coreligionists in synagogues. The first church started about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. If Jesus ever came alive, his address would be a synagogue. Therefore, all churches are wrong. Jesus could not have been. Does it make sense?

 

[dallas1125]

Like I said, nothing, but Orthodoxy and Catholicism are older, and hence have a more valid claim. Also, they may not have Apostles, but they do have the successors of the Apostles.

The bible never mentions a pope. Same with the trinity that was invented hundreds of years later. I also dint think age makes for a more valid claim. For example, Aristotle used to claim that the elements were fire, water, wind, and earth. Not true today. They used to think the earth was flat, but is actually round.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

The bible never mentions a pope. Same with the trinity that was invented hundreds of years later. I also dint think age makes for a more valid claim. For example, Aristotle used to claim that the elements were fire, water, wind, and earth. Not true today. They used to think the earth was flat, but is actually round.

The Bible may not contain the word Pope, but it does contain Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, no? The Pope is a Latin term applied to the Bishop of Rome, which means Papa, since father is an honorary title of a Bishop.

 

[dallas1125]

The Bible may not contain the word Pope, but it does contain Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, no? The Pope is a Latin term applied to the Bishop of Rome, which means Papa, since father is an honorary title of a Bishop.

Yeah, the LDS church has bishops deacons and the such too.

 

[spanjo]

Like I said, nothing, but Orthodoxy and Catholicism are older, and hence have a more valid claim. Also, they may not have Apostles, but they do have the successors of the Apostles.

There have been many different dispensations of the gospel, and many different apostasies, where the gospel and prophets did not exist on the earth. Each dispensation had a beginning (through a prophet) and an end (death/murder of prophet/s), we are currently in the last dispensation of the fullness of times, with the restored gospel through a prophet of God, just like in past dispensations. Longevity of a church validates nothing. Judaism is a remnant of the dispensation before Christ, does that mean it has the "true" gospel because it is simply older?
P.S. The successor of an apostle would have to be an apostle, just as the apostle Matthias was successor to Judas. Tell me, who are the current 12 successors to the original 12 apostles in Catholicism?

 

[spanjo]

Why does it have to be a church? Jesus was a Jewish man who gathered with his coreligionists in synagogues. The first church started about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. If Jesus ever came alive, his address would be a synagogue. Therefore, all churches are wrong. Jesus could not have been. Does it make sense?

Hi Masada, good question!
We believe that Christ fulfilled the Jewish law and the prophets, as he proclaimed. Churches replaced synagogues by Christ himself. "Upon this rock will I build my church..."

 

[dallas1125]

There have been many different dispensations of the gospel, and many different apostasies, where the gospel and prophets did not exist on the earth. Each dispensation had a beginning and an end, we are currently in the last dispensation of the fullness of times, with the restored gospel through a prophet of God, just like in past dispensations. Longevity of a church validates nothing. Judaism is a remnant of the dispensation before Christ, does that mean it has the "true" gospel because it is simply older?

Spanjo are you LDS? Cause that sure does sound like it.

 

[spanjo]

Spanjo are you LDS? Cause that sure does sound like it.

Yes, hello brother!

 

[dallas1125]

Yes, hello brother!

Hows it going bra?

:highfive:

 

[spanjo]

Hows it going bra?

:highfive:

Doin' good...just spreadin' the word. It's nice to see fellow members on here, it's a fun forum, I am learning a lot from the good folk around here!

 

[dallas1125]

Doin' good...just spreadin' the word. It's nice to see fellow members on here, it's a fun forum, I am learning a lot from the good folk around here!

Cool!

 

[Rainbow Mage]

There have been many different dispensations of the gospel, and many different apostasies, where the gospel and prophets did not exist on the earth. Each dispensation had a beginning (through a prophet) and an end (death/murder of prophet/s), we are currently in the last dispensation of the fullness of times, with the restored gospel through a prophet of God, just like in past dispensations. Longevity of a church validates nothing. Judaism is a remnant of the dispensation before Christ, does that mean it has the "true" gospel because it is simply older?
P.S. The successor of an apostle would have to be an apostle, just as the apostle Matthias was successor to Judas. Tell me, who are the current 12 successors to the original 12 apostles in Catholicism?

Where does the Bible say the successor of an Apostle must be an Apostle?

 

[spanjo]

It probably doesn't, but that's the way they did it as I already pointed out. It's not usually necessary to state the obvious. A president succeeds a president, a pope a pope, and a plumber a plumber. Get it? If they do have successors by different titles, again I ask, who are the current 12 successors and what are their titles?