What church is the true church?

[Flat Earth Kyle]

God says, "Seek, and you will find."

Definitely believe in that, Yet interestingly enough I have never walked into another church and had them give me the challenge to pray and ask God if this church is true, for he will provide his own proof to you through personal revelation. They always seem to try to prove it some other way.

 

[roger1440]

While this passage does not specifically instruct us to "test whether something is spirtually true by having a feeling or sensation," it clearly implies that knowledge of spiritual truths can sometimes be recognized in this way. The two men realized, after the fact, that the feeling they felt while in Christ's presence should have served to enlighten them as to who He was. I certainly wouldn't suggest that this is the only way the Holy Ghost can testify to the truthfulness or reality of something, but it is definitely one way.

You are absolutely right. The problem is the devil can invoke the same feelings. Since it's impossible to discern the source of the feelings, it's better to ignore them. The feelings may serve as a distraction. Saint John of the Cross 500 years ago went into detail about this in his writings.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

You are absolutely right. The problem is the devil can invoke the same feelings. Since it's impossible to discern the source of the feelings, it's better to ignore them. The feelings may serve as a distraction. Saint John of the Cross 500 years ago went into detail about this in his writings.

Yes, I agree the devil can invoke a burning in the bosom and tears to flow, but those are not the only ways God communicates with his children. If God wants to tell you something he will tell you something in a way that that you will be able to discern where the revelation came from. I also don't believe the devil can give someone peace.

 

[sojourner]

in other words they are speaking to dead people and asking them to pray for them because God will listen to their prayers more than he will listen to theirs, am I correct?

That's a fairly superficial way to look at it. It has to do with Paul's mention of "the great cloud of witnesses," and the mention in Revelation of those whose robes have been washed white. Many Xtians -- not just RCs -- believe that those who have died still live in God's kingdom. These "saints" work night and day, praying for the church, for humanity, and for the welfare of the world. It's not that God listens to their prayers more, it's that, as we understand it, the more people who are praying, the better. Its a way for us to connect to all in the church -- both those who have died and those who are still living.

 

[sojourner]

I get what you are saying.
Because we believe in modern day revelation, and in many teachings not found anywhere in the New Testament (such as the word of wisdom), what do I have more than the Catholics who also believe in a great many things found no where in the New Testament (such as the rosary.)

Right! I don't have a problem with continuing revelation. I choose not to participate in that as part of my spiritual regimen, but I support your endeavors in that activity. See, what some might refer to as "doctrines of men," that is, "stuff not found in the bible," we call "extra-biblical Tradition." Remember, at one point in time, the whole NT was "extra-biblical." It's what you might refer to as "continuing revelation" -- injunctions against caffeine, etc. We're really not all that far apart in our practices of "extra-biblical" activity.

 

[sojourner]

I believe in the Bible, The first was the KJV. It was written from the Scrolls.The two should match. The sections of the Bible that have been changed, I put back to that of the Scrolls.

If this is what you really believe, I'd say that you have about 50% of the truth about the nature and development of the biblical texts.

First of all, the texts were canonized in their present form by 450 c.e. the KJV was completed in 1611. the LXX (septuagint, or Greek translation of the OT) is dated to the 2nd century b.c.e.

Second, not all of the "original texts" were written on scrolls. The OT texts were, but the NT texts were collected in codices, or books. The KJV does not take advantage of either the earliest texts or the latest scholarship. While it continues to be a great translation, it's certainly not the most "correct."

 

[InChrist]

Luke 24:30-32 describes the encounter between the resurrected Lord and the two men He walked with on the road to Emmaus. It says:

"And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?"

While this passage does not specifically instruct us to "test whether something is spirtually true by having a feeling or sensation," it clearly implies that knowledge of spiritual truths can sometimes be recognized in this way. The two men realized, after the fact, that the feeling they felt while in Christ's presence should have served to enlighten them as to who He was. I certainly wouldn't suggest that this is the only way the Holy Ghost can testify to the truthfulness or reality of something, but it is definitely one way.

If you notice in the verses you posted (Luke 24:30-32) it says, “Did not our heart burn within us, while He talked with us by the way and opened to us the scriptures?” I am not discounting the “feeling” they experienced, but it was not the feeling in itself which validated the truth of Jesus to them. The words of Jesus as He opened the scriptures to them are what did so and the feeling followed. The scriptures are the standard by which truth is known and tested. Feelings are fine when they line up with scriptures, otherwise they are not dependable in themselves because they can fluctuate so much. Even Paul was glad and commended those in Berea searched the scriptures to make sure that what he was teaching lined up.

Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men. Acts 17:10-12

What I see as a disadvantage for those investigating the Mormon Church is that they are told to read the Book of Mormon and the spirit will testify by giving a burning in the bosom and this is supposed to validate it truthfulness. There is no recommendation to test the Book of Mormon by the biblical scriptures at all. The stance of the Mormon Church is “the Bible is correct only in so far as it has been translated correctly”. This along with the fact that the church accepts new revelations makes it very difficult for an individual to use the Bible as the plumb line to test or evaluate feelings or false teachings because the church authorities have already overridden the biblical scriptures by claiming higher authority.

 

[CG Didymus]

The scriptures are the standard by which truth is known and tested. Feelings are fine when they line up with scriptures, otherwise they are not dependable in themselves because they can fluctuate so much. Even Paul was glad and commended those in Berea searched the scriptures to make sure that what he was teaching lined up.

Is the "true" church something that Paul describes and is verifiable in the Hebrew Scriptures? He told them the "truth" about the Christ and told them verses in the Hebrew Bible that substantiated his claims, but now that they believed, what were they supposed to do? At some point even the Christians that came from a Jewish tradition quit going to the Synagogues. All they had was the Word of God, the Hebrew Bible, and a few letters from Paul, a few gospels, and the other early writings. They had to build the "true" church. They had to decide on what they really believed (the Trinity). They had to decide which books to make "God's" new Word. They didn't have "sola scriptura" in the beginning. They had to decide which ones amongst them had carried things too far and had become heretical. The dominate "church" became Rome. What else could they have done? Was there a Biblical model for a "true" church that they should have followed instead?

 

[Aamer]

Is the "true" church something that Paul describes and is verifiable in the Hebrew Scriptures? He told them the "truth" about the Christ and told them verses in the Hebrew Bible that substantiated his claims, but now that they believed, what were they supposed to do? At some point even the Christians that came from a Jewish tradition quit going to the Synagogues. All they had was the Word of God, the Hebrew Bible, and a few letters from Paul, a few gospels, and the other early writings. They had to build the "true" church. They had to decide on what they really believed (the Trinity). They had to decide which books to make "God's" new Word. They didn't have "sola scriptura" in the beginning. They had to decide which ones amongst them had carried things too far and had become heretical. The dominate "church" became Rome. What else could they have done? Was there a Biblical model for a "true" church that they should have followed instead?

In the end, it wasn't the Christians who decided. It was the Romans, led by Emperor Constantine. The proof is so obvious. Look at the Catholic Church today and compare that with the words of Jesus recorded in the NT. Do they have anything in common? But the Catholic Church has plenty in common with Roman paganism.

 

[roger1440]

In the end, it wasn't the Christians who decided. It was the Romans, led by Emperor Constantine. The proof is so obvious. Look at the Catholic Church today and compare that with the words of Jesus recorded in the NT. Do they have anything in common? But the Catholic Church has plenty in common with Roman paganism.

If it is "so obvious" please quote your source.

 

[CG Didymus]

In the end, it wasn't the Christians who decided. It was the Romans, led by Emperor Constantine. The proof is so obvious. Look at the Catholic Church today and compare that with the words of Jesus recorded in the NT. Do they have anything in common? But the Catholic Church has plenty in common with Roman paganism.

What should have the true church looked like? Where did the early church do wrong? Forget being the "true" church, are any churches today close enough?

 

[Aamer]

What should have the true church looked like? Where did the early church do wrong? Forget being the "true" church, are any churches today close enough?

Not that I can see. And I'm not just talking about Christians. The same goes for Muslims too. Man has gotten his dirty hands into all of Gods messages and altered them. I think it's more about an individual and his or her personal relationship with God. I believe in seeking the truth and I believe I have found it. But I've also found that the truth is lonely. None of the existing major religions are following it. They're all set in their ways and unwilling to question why they believe what they believe.

 

[sojourner]

Is the "true" church something that Paul describes and is verifiable in the Hebrew Scriptures? He told them the "truth" about the Christ and told them verses in the Hebrew Bible that substantiated his claims, but now that they believed, what were they supposed to do? At some point even the Christians that came from a Jewish tradition quit going to the Synagogues. All they had was the Word of God, the Hebrew Bible, and a few letters from Paul, a few gospels, and the other early writings. They had to build the "true" church. They had to decide on what they really believed (the Trinity). They had to decide which books to make "God's" new Word. They didn't have "sola scriptura" in the beginning. They had to decide which ones amongst them had carried things too far and had become heretical. The dominate "church" became Rome. What else could they have done? Was there a Biblical model for a "true" church that they should have followed instead?

I agree. Most early Xtians didn't have a bible -- and most couldn't have read it, if they had it. And there's nothing in the bible that gives us any specific parameters for the church. The Didache gives some specific instructions, but that wasn't written until 200 years or so after the Jesus Event. All they had was word of mouth, and the example of whatever apostle came to them.

 

[sojourner]

In the end, it wasn't the Christians who decided. It was the Romans, led by Emperor Constantine. The proof is so obvious. Look at the Catholic Church today and compare that with the words of Jesus recorded in the NT. Do they have anything in common? But the Catholic Church has plenty in common with Roman paganism.

Constantine wasn't until 300 years after the Jesus Event. Church history shows us that there was a whole lot going on in the church before that point. And the power in the church wasn't so clear cut as you suggest. It vascillated between Rome and the East for years. The Romans, as a political force, really had less influence than one might be led to think by your post.

 

[Katzpur]

You are absolutely right. The problem is the devil can invoke the same feelings. Since it's impossible to discern the source of the feelings, it's better to ignore them. The feelings may serve as a distraction. Saint John of the Cross 500 years ago went into detail about this in his writings.

I've got to disagree. Consider Matthew 16:13-17:

"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

Of all the Apostles, Peter alone gave Christ the answer He was looking for -- "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus responded to Peter's answer by pointing out that Peter was blessed to know this, not because he had been convinced by any other human being, but because God had revealed it to him. And how would God have done this? Wouldn't you agree that it would have been through the power of the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit? I'm not saying that communication from the Holy Ghost must be accompanied by "a burning in the bosom," but the Holy Ghost does speak to the heart in addition to the mind. If a person is truly desirous of knowing the truth of spiritual things, I believe that God will respond to his sincere prayers for wisdom. The devil certainly has power to masquerade as something that he is not, but God's power is greater. If you don't believe you should trust what the Holy Ghost tells you, do you believe there is a better way to decide what's true and what's not? And if you do believe you should trust what the Holy Ghost tells you, how do you personally recognize that He has spoken to you?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

If you notice in the verses you posted (Luke 24:30-32) it says, “Did not our heart burn within us, while He talked with us by the way and opened to us the scriptures?” I am not discounting the “feeling” they experienced, but it was not the feeling in itself which validated the truth of Jesus to them. The words of Jesus as He opened the scriptures to them are what did so and the feeling followed. The scriptures are the standard by which truth is known and tested. Feelings are fine when they line up with scriptures, otherwise they are not dependable in themselves because they can fluctuate so much. Even Paul was glad and commended those in Berea searched the scriptures to make sure that what he was teaching lined up.

Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men. Acts 17:10-12

What I see as a disadvantage for those investigating the Mormon Church is that they are told to read the Book of Mormon and the spirit will testify by giving a burning in the bosom and this is supposed to validate it truthfulness. There is no recommendation to test the Book of Mormon by the biblical scriptures at all. The stance of the Mormon Church is “the Bible is correct only in so far as it has been translated correctly”. This along with the fact that the church accepts new revelations makes it very difficult for an individual to use the Bible as the plumb line to test or evaluate feelings or false teachings because the church authorities have already overridden the biblical scriptures by claiming higher authority.

Obviously you haven't read the Book of Mormon Challenge before.
"3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."

It does not say anything about "You will know the truth of these things with a burning in the bosom, only you will know these things by the power of the Holy Ghost."

 

[Katzpur]

If you notice in the verses you posted (Luke 24:30-32) it says, “Did not our heart burn within us, while He talked with us by the way and opened to us the scriptures?” I am not discounting the “feeling” they experienced, but it was not the feeling in itself which validated the truth of Jesus to them. The words of Jesus as He opened the scriptures to them are what did so and the feeling followed. The scriptures are the standard by which truth is known and tested. Feelings are fine when they line up with scriptures, otherwise they are not dependable in themselves because they can fluctuate so much. Even Paul was glad and commended those in Berea searched the scriptures to make sure that what he was teaching lined up.

I couldn't agree more. It's nice to see we're on the same page for a change.


Or not...

What I see as a disadvantage for those investigating the Mormon Church is that they are told to read the Book of Mormon and the spirit will testify by giving a burning in the bosom and this is supposed to validate it truthfulness. There is no recommendation to test the Book of Mormon by the biblical scriptures at all.

You simply can't talk about any subject without getting on your anti-Mormon soapbox, can you? You are so, so mistaken about this. No one should ever simply "read the Book of Mormon" and expect to receive a witness as to its truthfulness. That's not how it works. Of course we should keep the teachings of the Bible in mind when reading the Book of Mormon. The two go hand in hand in testifying of Jesus Christ. Contrary to what you may believe, there is nothing in the Book of Mormon that contradicts anything the Bible has to say. Anyone who is going to even bother to take the time to read the Book of Mormon should do so with an open mind and a willingless to put in some real effort into finding something positive in its message before even considering asking for a confirming witness that it's true. The Bible, as you know, also testifies that if a person lacks wisdom, he should ask for God's help in finding it. But it would be extremely foolish to ask God to tell you for wisdom without first putting forth a sincere effort to learn all you can.

The stance of the Mormon Church is “the Bible is correct only in so far as it has been translated correctly”.

Well, duh. Why would you consider it to be correct if it hadn't been translated correctly? The Book of Mormon makes a similar statement on its own cover page, cautioning the reader that if there are mistakes in the book, they are the mistakes of men and not of God. Any time human beings are involved in the transcription or translation process of any ancient document, there is a possibility of error. Only a completely naive person would think otherwise.

This along with the fact that the church accepts new revelations makes it very difficult for an individual to use the Bible as the plumb line to test or evaluate feelings or false teachings because the church authorities have already overridden the biblical scriptures by claiming higher authority.

So, you think that the God who is the same yesterday, today and forever, decided to suddenly stop talking to His children and leave them with nothing more than a book? If that's what you think, fine. As for me, if God has something more to say, I'm not going to be among those who tell Him to shut up because He already had His chance.

 

[CG Didymus]

Not that I can see. And I'm not just talking about Christians. The same goes for Muslims too. Man has gotten his dirty hands into all of Gods messages and altered them. I think it's more about an individual and his or her personal relationship with God. I believe in seeking the truth and I believe I have found it. But I've also found that the truth is lonely. None of the existing major religions are following it. They're all set in their ways and unwilling to question why they believe what they believe.

You know it seems like liberal forms of religion lower their doctrinal standards enough to allow what looks like a nice peaceful loving unity. Is there a truth in being so doctrinally wishy-washy as to "love" everybody. It definitely isn't lonely, but is it too broad and undefined?

 

[InChrist]

Is the "true" church something that Paul describes and is verifiable in the Hebrew Scriptures? He told them the "truth" about the Christ and told them verses in the Hebrew Bible that substantiated his claims, but now that they believed, what were they supposed to do? At some point even the Christians that came from a Jewish tradition quit going to the Synagogues. All they had was the Word of God, the Hebrew Bible, and a few letters from Paul, a few gospels, and the other early writings. They had to build the "true" church. They had to decide on what they really believed (the Trinity). They had to decide which books to make "God's" new Word. They didn't have "sola scriptura" in the beginning. They had to decide which ones amongst them had carried things too far and had become heretical. The dominate "church" became Rome. What else could they have done? Was there a Biblical model for a "true" church that they should have followed instead?

The Roman church did become dominate because they became political for the sake of power, which the scriptures refer to as spiritual compromise and harlotry. But being powerful or the most dominate does not mean "true'.

Below are just a few scriptures which show what the church should look like. The book of Acts shows the development of the early church and the epistles all give instructions for the church. The scriptures also reveal Christ is the head and the One who builds His church. I really believe that while all believers are unified on the essentials of the Christian faith there is much room for individuality, cultural diversity, and growth toward unity in the non-essential doctrines among believers in various church groups.



For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.” Matthew 18:20

And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. Acts 2:42

Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching. Hebrews 10:23-25

Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering; bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do. But above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him. Colossians 3:12-17

 

[InChrist]

Or not... You simply can't talk about any subject without getting on your anti-Mormon soapbox, can you? You are so, so mistaken about this. No one should ever simply "read the Book of Mormon" and expect to receive a witness as to its truthfulness. That's not how it works. Of course we should keep the teachings of the Bible in mind when reading the Book of Mormon. The two go hand in hand in testifying of Jesus Christ. Contrary to what you may believe, there is nothing in the Book of Mormon that contradicts anything the Bible has to say. Anyone who is going to even bother to take the time to read the Book of Mormon should do so with an open mind and a willingless to put in some real effort into finding something positive in its message before even considering asking for a confirming witness that it's true. The Bible, as you know, also testifies that if a person lacks wisdom, he should ask for God's help in finding it. But it would be extremely foolish to ask God to tell you for wisdom without first putting forth a sincere effort to learn all you can.

I don’t look at it as being anti-Mormon, but rather contending for the biblical faith, as believers are instructed to do in the scriptures (Jude 3). I am not against Mormon people and I am not against you personally, but I do see conflict between Mormon doctrine and Biblical truth and I believe there are contradictions between the Book of Mormon and the Bible.

Mormon missionaries ask potential converts to read the Book of Mormon and pray concerning its truthfulness, is that not correct? At least that was what I was asked to do by the missionaries, but that was years ago, maybe it has changed. The apostles never asked people to pray about their message because what they taught was from the scriptures and could be verified. There is nothing in the biblical scriptures about the BOM or any way to verify it by the biblical scriptures. As a matter of fact the biblical scriptures are said to be complete (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and the faith was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). So to even pray about additional writings such as the BOM would be praying for something outside of God’s already revealed will and word. This can invite a deceptive experience from deceiving spirits. You are correct that in the Bible believers are told to ask God for wisdom (James 1:5), but this is speaking to those who are already in the faith and encouraging them to pray and seek wisdom through God’s Word in the Bible, It is not a directive to pray about accepting or seeking wisdom from additional, extra-biblical material.

[/i]Well, duh. Why would you consider it to be correct if it hadn't been translated correctly? The Book of Mormon makes a similar statement on its own cover page, cautioning the reader that if there are mistakes in the book, they are the mistakes of men and not of God. Any time human beings are involved in the transcription or translation process of any ancient document, there is a possibility of error. Only a completely naive person would think otherwise.

I consider the Bible to be correct because I consider the important truths have been translated correctly because it is God's Word and He has preserved it intact. I’m not saying there are not some human errors which for the most part are grammar or punctuation, but I don’t believe there are any errors which affect the truth concerning the nature of God, man, salvation, eternal life or any other important doctrine. The 8th article of faith of the Mormon Church seems to be an attempt to undermine the trustworthiness and authority of the Bible, so when the Bible contradicts Mormonism the authority of the Mormon Church can take precedence over the biblical scriptures.

So, you think that the God who is the same yesterday, today and forever, decided to suddenly stop talking to His children and leave them with nothing more than a book? If that's what you think, fine. As for me, if God has something more to say, I'm not going to be among those who tell Him to shut up because He already had His chance.

[/quote]

No, I believe His Word (the Bible) is complete and living. He is able to speak through His written word to anyone who sincerely seeks His wisdom concerning all matters of life, godliness, and eternity.