The True Church

[katiemygirl]

Marks of the True Church

1. Believes that Jesus Christ is God. John 1:1

2. Has no Head of the church but Jesus. Ephesians 5:23

3. Teaches truth not Denominationalism. Mark 7:7-8

4. Teaches that The Bible is the True Word of God, and is without error. 2 Timothy 3:16-17

5. Teaches that Authority comes from the word of God not leaders in the Church. 1 Thessalonians 4:2, Acts 2:42

6. Teaches Believers Baptism. Mark 16:16

7. Teaches that Repentance and Baptism is for the Forgiveness of Sins and the way to receive the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38, Romans 6:3-4

8. Teaches that Jesus is the only way to heaven. Acts 4:12

9. Teaches that Sinners will go to Hell. Revelation 21:8, 20:11-15

10. Takes care of the Poor. James 1:27

11. And does the Great Commission. Matthew 28:18-20

Irrefutable!

 

[katiemygirl]

make no mistake about it Jesus is feeding his faithful ones MATTHEW 24;45-47 And its all happening in this time that we are living in , the channel Jesus is spiritually feeding are full of good spiritual bible based things to share with others.

Sorry, but the Governing Body of the Jehovah's Witnesses are no true channel. In fact, they are the opposite. All one needs to do is read the history of the movement to know the organization is based upon lies.

 

[Muffled]

Reality, walking on water just cannot happen, now what proof do you have, show me someone walking on water and I may believe.

I don't have a picture but I have seen it. Your problem is that you have a barbarian's view of what is possible. Scientists have learned that many more things are possible than people thought.

 

[Muffled]

Peter said baptism saves. When you read thru the NT, you will find many statements which list a variety of things that save: the gospel saves, the blood of Christ saves,
grace saves, love saves.

Here's more of the things, which the Bible says saves: God, faith, confession, repentance, doing the will of the Lord, hearing, the Holy Spirit, blood, preaching, Jesus, His life, His death, enduring to the end, being righteous and more.

We understand that we are saved by the grace of God, but His grace is conditional. If it were not, then all would be saved.

Things like love, repentance, baptism, and doing the will of the Father are conditions.

Yes, grace is a free gift, but it is still conditional.

I believe he qualifies that so saying simply that baptism saves is really a misquote.

Of course there are different kinds of salvations. One may be saved from embarrassment by Baptism. Shouldn't a person professing to be a Christian be embarrassed to admit they have not been baptized?

 

[Muffled]

Irrefutable!

Not so fast!

I believe 3. has its problems. Every denomination thinks it has the truth and does not espouse other denominations as having it.

 

[katiemygirl]

I believe he qualifies that so saying simply that baptism saves is really a misquote.

Of course there are different kinds of salvations. One may be saved from embarrassment by Baptism. Shouldn't a person professing to be a Christian be embarrassed to admit they have not been baptized?

A Christian is a disciple of Christ, a follower of His. How on earth could one claim to be a Christian and not do as He did? It's a contradiction in terms.

The first use of the word, "Christian," in the Bible is found in Acts 11:26, "And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."

 

[katiemygirl]

Not so fast!

I believe 3. has its problems. Every denomination thinks it has the truth and does not espouse other denominations as having it.

I understand what you are trying to say Muffled, however, the statement is true. The true church, and there is a true church, teaches truth and not denominationalism.

3. Teaches truth not Denominationalism. Mark 7:7-8

Consider this. There is a true church in the New Testament. It is the church that Jesus built. It is a worldwide, spiritual institution, which the Lord adds members to based upon His conditions, not ours. The Lord added 3000 baptized believers to His church on the day of Pentecost. We see thousands of others becoming Christians throughout the New Testament, and being added to the true church.

The true church exists today, and so does denominationalism. We cannot deny that.

So what is church? It is the people, not buildings with signs in front of them hailing all sorts of man made names printed upon them.

The true church exists wherever God's people are, and only He can determine who those people may be.

 

[katiemygirl]

I believe he qualifies that so saying simply that baptism saves is really a misquote.

Of course there are different kinds of salvations. One may be saved from embarrassment by Baptism. Shouldn't a person professing to be a Christian be embarrassed to admit they have not been baptized?

 

[Berserk]

4 Comments on the Discussion so far [each of which could evolve into its own thread]
(1) There are NT statements that imply in some sense the divine inspiration of Scripture, but nowhere does the Bible actually claim to be inerrant.
(2) Even in principle the NT cannot comment on its own divine inspiration. Patristic evidence suggests that there was no widespread consensus on the contents of our NT canon until around 200 CE.
(3) The NT repeatedly implies that salvation is possible apart from formal profession of faith in Christ.
(4) Paul repeatedly implies that the ideal church is demonstrated through it's spiritual "power," not by its formal doctrinal system.

 

[metis]

The true church exists wherever God's people are, and only He can determine who those people may be.

But here's the rub: it is very clear throughout much of the N.T. that the church had an organization and a hierarchy with the latter being the apostles and, eventually, their appointees.

 

[katiemygirl]

But here's the rub: it is very clear throughout much of the N.T. that the church had an organization and a hierarchy with the latter being the apostles and, eventually, their appointees.

There is no rub.

There was no heirarchy in the early church, at least not in the way we see in Roman catolicism. The heirarchial system came about in the early 300's. It was patterned after the Roman Empire and adopted later by the Roman catholics.

Yes, there are elders in each congregation of the Lord's church. They have a specific role and function as does every member. We are all servants of God and equal in His eyes. No one is better or more important than the other. Elders do not create new doctrine. Instead, they make sure the doctrine of Jesus and His apostles is taught.

Elders lead the church [1 Tim 5:17; Titus 1:7;1 Peter 5:1–2], They teach and preach the Word [1 Timothy 3:2; 2 Timothy 4:2;Titus 1:9], They protect the church from false teachers [Acts 20:17, 28–31], They exhort and admonish the saints in sound doctrine [1 Timothy 4:13; 2 Timothy 3:13–17;Titus 1:9], They visit the sick and pray [James 5:14; Acts 6:4], They judge doctrinal issues [Acts 15:6]. In biblical terminology, elders shepherd, oversee, lead, and care for the local church.

 

[metis]

There is no rub.

There was no heirarchy in the early church, at least not in the way we see in Roman catolicism. The heirarchial system came about in the early 300's. It was patterned after the Roman Empire and adopted later by the Roman catholics.

That simply is not true, and one can easily understand why simply by rereading the book of Acts, followed by the epistles, especially those attributed to Paul.

Why do you think Jesus appointed the Twelve? Why do you think he invested powers with the Twelve? Why do you think the Twelve appointed others? Why do you think Paul kept on writing that the church needs to be "one body" under the leadership of the Twelve? How would the continuity of Jesus' message be passed on since the Christian scriptures would not even begin to be written until at least two decades after Jesus was crucified?

There was a hierarchy of sorts with the Twelve, with the different apostles having different areas they specialized in. They were not perfect people and they weren't always on the same page, plus thy had their weaknesses as well. The church never was viewed as a do your own thing loosey-goosey free-for-all.

 

[Berserk]

In the Pauline churches, leadership was initially charismatic rather than based on formal office. True, the apostles were uniquely authoritative due to their status as eyewitnesses of Jesus' life and resurrection. Only later in the first century does a hierarchy of formal offices develop consisting of bishops, elders, and deacons (note the deuteron-Pauline pastoral epistles (1-2 Timothy and Titus). As long as leadership remained charismatic, women could be leaders, even apostles.

By the way the bishop of Roman never became pope until Leo's papacy from 440-461 AD.

 

[metis]

In the Pauline churches, leadership was initially charismatic rather than based on formal office. True, the apostles were uniquely authoritative due to their status as eyewitnesses of Jesus' life and resurrection. Only later in the first century does a hierarchy of formal offices develop consisting of bishops, elders, and deacons (note the deuteron-Pauline pastoral epistles (1-2 Timothy and Titus). As long as leadership remained charismatic, women could be leaders, even apostles.

By the way the bishop of Roman never became pope until Leo's papacy from 440-461 AD.

That's really not entirely true. Even though the individual churches had quite a bit of de facto autonomy because of distance, there still was the recognition that there was a greater whole. Therefore, there really wasn't any "Pauline churches", which Paul himself forbade, btw.

Secondly, the "chair of Peter" in Rome had a special designation, and was often referred to to help settle disputes. However, because of the scattering of churches over a relatively wide area, the power of the Bishop of Rome was quite limited. In Paul's letters, he frequently talks about "one body", thus not splintering along the lines of which apostle or appointee to follow.

As far as he title "pope" is concerned:
Tertullian, in the early part of the second century A.D., is believed to have been the first person to apply the term Pontifex Maximus (Supreme Pontiff or Pope) to the head of the Catholic Church. He used the term, however, in sarcastic rebuke of Callixtus I whom he felt was exercising too much unilateral power in the church. -- http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/origin-of-the-title-of-pope-as-head-of-catholic-church.html

 

[Berserk]

That's really not entirely true. Even though the individual churches had quite a bit of de facto autonomy because of distance, there still was the recognition that there was a greater whole. Therefore, there really wasn't any "Pauline churches", which Paul himself forbade, btw.

Scholars use the designation "Pauline churches" to refer to churches founded by Paul. For Paul, the church as a whole was the corporate body of Christ. But Paul does not acknowledge any surpassing ecclesial authority in Jerusalem or Rome. He views himself as an apostle on an equal footing with Peter. in fact, in Galatians 2 we find Paul publicly rebuking Peter for his hypocrisy.

Secondly, the "chair of Peter" in Rome had a special designation, and was often referred to to help settle disputes. However, because of the scattering of churches over a relatively wide area, the power of the Bishop of Rome was quite limited. In Paul's letters, he frequently talks about "one body", thus not splintering along the lines of which apostle or appointee to follow.

Rome had no unique ecclesial authority in the first 2 centuries.

As far as he title "pope" is concerned:
Tertullian, in the early part of the second century A.D., is believed to have been the first person to apply the term Pontifex Maximus (Supreme Pontiff or Pope) to the head of the Catholic Church. /QUOTE]

No, Tertullian and his successors did not apply the title to the bishop of Rome. The title was first applied to Gratian in 360 AD. But as I said, Leo was the first to qualify as Pope. http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a104.htm

 

[Shiranui117]

There is no rub.

There was no heirarchy in the early church, at least not in the way we see in Roman catolicism. The heirarchial system came about in the early 300's. It was patterned after the Roman Empire and adopted later by the Roman catholics.

Yes, there are elders in each congregation of the Lord's church. They have a specific role and function as does every member. We are all servants of God and equal in His eyes. No one is better or more important than the other. Elders do not create new doctrine. Instead, they make sure the doctrine of Jesus and His apostles is taught.

Elders lead the church [1 Tim 5:17; Titus 1:7;1 Peter 5:1–2], They teach and preach the Word [1 Timothy 3:2; 2 Timothy 4:2;Titus 1:9], They protect the church from false teachers [Acts 20:17, 28–31], They exhort and admonish the saints in sound doctrine [1 Timothy 4:13; 2 Timothy 3:13–17;Titus 1:9], They visit the sick and pray [James 5:14; Acts 6:4], They judge doctrinal issues [Acts 15:6]. In biblical terminology, elders shepherd, oversee, lead, and care for the local church.

Do you know what the Greek word commonly translated as "elder" is? It will go a long way in helping you understand whether or not the early Church had a hierarchy (a viewpoint which is the overwhelming scholarly consensus, by the way).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christianity#Organization

 

[Berserk]

Metis, Until Gratian, the title Pontifex Maximus is not applied to the bishop of Rome, not even by Tertullian. But Leo the first is the fkrst Pope in the modern sense of the term. And Shiranui, the term "presbyteros" ("elder" or "presbyter") and "diakonis" ("minister"r, and later "deacon") do not imply formal office as opposed to charisma based leadership until the last part of the first century.

 

[Shiranui117]

Metis, Until Gratian, the title Pontifex Maximus is not applied to the bishop of Rome, not even by Tertullian. But Leo the first is the fkrst Pope in the modern sense of the term. And Shiranui, the term "presbyteros" ("elder" or "presbyter") and "diakonis" ("minister"r, and later "deacon") do not imply formal office as opposed to charisma based leadership until the last part of the first century.

You forget the office of "episkopos" (overseer), which was considered an office at least as early as St. Paul's first letter to Timothy (check 1 Timothy 3:1-7), which was conferred on someone by being ordained by other presbyters (1 Timothy 4:14), and the letter to Titus, where it says that presbyters are to be appointed (Titus 1:5), and there were criteria in place for who should be appointed as an episkopos--or, as that word means today, bishop (hence the term "episcopal" referring to bishops). Bishops were also known by Acts 20:28. To be a deacon, presbyter or episkopos was absolutely a formal office, and was never just a role that any charismatic person could pick up; not anyone could just jump up and start being one. You had to be ordained by one of the Apostles, or by one of the presbyters/episkopoi.

 

[metis]

You forget the office of "episkopos" (overseer), which was considered an office at least as early as St. Paul's first letter to Timothy (check 1 Timothy 3:1-7), which was conferred on someone by being ordained by other presbyters (1 Timothy 4:14), and the letter to Titus, where it says that presbyters are to be appointed (Titus 1:5), and there were criteria in place for who should be appointed as an episkopos--or, as that word means today, bishop (hence the term "episcopal" referring to bishops). Bishops were also known by Acts 20:28. To be a deacon, presbyter or episkopos was absolutely a formal office, and was never just a role that any charismatic person could pick up; not anyone could just jump up and start being one. You had to be ordained by one of the Apostles, or by one of the presbyters/episkopoi.

No, I didn't forget that at all. The episcopoi oversaw local churches, and sometimes there was more than one at any particular local church. The presybers were sometimes referred to as "elders", but this is also where the term "father" comes from, and there could be several at any particular local church. Neither episcopoi nor presbyter negate the issue of there being a "pope".

But also notice that what you did at the end was to confirm what history has shown, namely that there was a hierarchy based on appointees, so thank you for that. The "validity" of the 2nd century church was not based on the canon, which had not been chosen as of that time, but was based on appointees through "apostolic succession". This is not speculation but is based on know and verifiable historical documents from the 2nd century leaders.

Since I am neither Catholic nor Christian, I have no irons in the fire, so I'm relying exclusively on what historical documents have been telling us. It's ironic that some tout the Christian scriptures and yet don't seem to realize that the canon was chosen by the church in the 4th century under Constantine's reign and orders.

 

[metis]

Metis, Until Gratian, the title Pontifex Maximus is not applied to the bishop of Rome, not even by Tertullian. But Leo the first is the fkrst Pope in the modern sense of the term. And Shiranui, the term "presbyteros" ("elder" or "presbyter") and "diakonis" ("minister"r, and later "deacon") do not imply formal office as opposed to charisma based leadership until the last part of the first century.

False again: Here's another source whereas the term "Pope", this time in Greek, was first used: The word pope is derived ultimately from the Greek πάππας (páppas) originally an affectionate term meaning "father", later referring to a bishop or patriarch. The earliest record of the use of this title is in regard to the Patriarch of Alexandria,Pope Heraclas of Alexandria (232–248) in a letter written by his successor, Pope Dionysius of Alexandria, to Philemon, a Roman presbyter..: -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_(word)

And I notice that you do not cite your source.