Which of all churches on earth is the only true church?

[angellous_evangellous]

That too is hate speech. If you want to discuss the Inquisition or the Crusades, I am quite prepared to do so. Open another thread. It's inflammatory and has nothing to do with the topic. Calling the Church the whore of Babylon has to do with scriptural contortionism, not interpretation. I was not aware the Jackkk Chickkk mentality was so predominate when I joined this forum.

No, it's not hate speech. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that it is hateful.

(And I don't think that the Church is the Whore, but it may as well be)

 

[MurphtheSurf]

That too is hate speech. If you want to discuss the Inquisition or the Crusades, I am quite prepared to do so. Open another thread. It's inflammatory and has nothing to do with the topic. Calling the Church the whore of Babylon has to do with scriptural contortionism, not interpretation. I was not aware the Jackkk Chickkk mentality was so predominate when I joined this forum.

Yes Jack Chicks hatred towards catholics is legendary but little does he know that his religion is a part of Babylon the Great along with every other false religion on earth.

It most certainly was not ancient Rome and 666 is not a code number for Nero.

 

[Muffled]

The one that has the most money.

Historically the church gathering in the most money has been the RToman catholic Church but if one is speaking of how wealthy members are then it would be the Episcopal church.

 

[Muffled]

Isa. 35:8, 54:13-17 - this prophecy refers to the Church as the Holy Way where sons will be taught by God and they will not err. The Church has been given the gift of infallibility when teaching about faith and morals, where her sons are taught directly by God and will not err. This gift of infallibility means that the Church is prevented from teaching error by the power of the Holy Spirit (it does not mean that Church leaders do not sin!)

Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14,22 - the early Church is identified as the "Way" prophesied in Isaiah 35:8 where fools will not err therein.

Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12 - Jesus tells His apostles it is not they who speak, but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them. If the Spirit is the one speaking and leading the Church, the Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail. Also, since the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed up until the Reformation, those who follow the Protestant reformers call Christ a liar by saying that Hades did prevail.

Matt. 16:19 - for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.

Can heaven bind an error???

Matt. 18:17-18 - the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation.

Matt. 28:20 - Jesus promises that He will be with the Church always. Jesus' presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals. With Jesus present, we can never be deceived.
Scripture Catholic - The Church


The question begs the question: who has the authority to determine what the true principles of Christ are?

This is just Protestant myth. Salvation by works apart from the grace of Christ is a heresy called Pelagianism, and was condemned by the Catholic Church over 1000 years before the first Protestant was born. Catholicism does not teach salvation by works, and never has.

Granted, salvation is by faith, but not by faith alone. James 2:24 is explicitly clear that we are not saved by faith alone. see Scripture Catholic - JUSTIFICATION

I only recognize one authority and that is Jesus. If someone else wishes to claim to be an authority, that person's teaching has to be approved by Jesus for me to acknowledge it.

If you are believing in faith and works you are still believing in works. Also I have met Catholics who having been taught their catechism misinterpret it to mean works and fall into the heresy.

James is talking about faith which leads to obedience which is the basis for the law. It is a belief in works. New Testamnet grace is about faith that God will work in us to produce the same results. We are not saved by the works. Our works are the result of our salvation. However if the works do not appear the onus is on God not on us and our salvation is not taken away from us because of it. A person depending on works for salvation is never justified because he is always losing his salvation as he continues to sin.

That is an obvious misinterpretation. The church is there to inteercede when two people are having an argument but there is no incation that the argument has anything to do with questions of faith. Jesus is the final auhtority on questions of faith. No doubt there is an unresolvable problem when two people disagree as to what Jesus is saying but the church has no greater authority in determining that than any of its members. Truth is not determined by majority or authoritarian rule. For instance there was a chuch where the pastor was accused by a teenager of raping her. The pastor claimed it was consensual. The church members sided with the pastor and condemned the girl. The truth is that sex with a minor is never considered consensual but that didn't keep a whole church from being wrong about it. We could talk about authoritarian consent to allow molestation of boys by priests but why go there?

The guarantee is that Jesus will be with us not a guarantee that we will be with Him. Error in teaching arises because leaders are not with Jesus.

Those two prophecies refer to the time when the kingdom of God comes on earth. It isn't here yet. Even Paul acknowledged that he saw through a glass darkly. It would be nice to claim infallibility but not even I would dare do that. The obvious truth is that the leaders of the Roman Catholic church have proven themselves quite fallible.

On this I would agree, but as I said before obviously not everyone has spoken by the Holy Spirit.

That is a big stretch. It suggests that all error is formulated by the devil. I don't think that is the case. People are prone to wander all by themselves. The reality is that God will bring people to correct the errors. An authoritarian church won't listen to them any more than the Pharisees were willing to listen to Jesus.

 

[sojourner]

Yes Jack Chicks hatred towards catholics is legendary but little does he know that his religion is a part of Babylon the Great along with every other false religion on earth.

It most certainly was not ancient Rome and 666 is not a code number for Nero.

What would qualify a religion as "false," do you think? Does the religion support spiritual formation? Then I'd say it's a real religion.

 

[Muffled]

The Princess Bride!!! :biglaugh: Too much!!!


and this followed by "accusing the church the Whore of Babylon is hate speech."

Oh hell!!! Not sure how much more I can take. Hard to breathe!!!

Thank you that!!!! I needed it!!

I am not sure that being Roman Catholic is much better than being Jewish. However it is difficult to construe either as false religion as was the case with the Babylonian religion.

As for fantasies such as the Princess Bride, I wouldn't take them too seriously.

Probably each entity thinks that an error in the other entity constitutes false religion but that is not my understanding of the Biblical origen.

On the other hand born again Christians tend to think of their faith as the only living faith. I suspect that is a matter of degree. Even a Jew or a Muslim has a chance within the law to have a living faith. It just isn't going to be any where near as vibrant as faith in Jesus. So the Roman C atholic church can claim to still be alive because it exists but is the Spirit of God alive in it? That is difficult to assess. It does not appear that the teaching favors it.

 

[MurphtheSurf]

What would qualify a religion as "false," do you think? Does the religion support spiritual formation? Then I'd say it's a real religion.

In my first post on this thread I pasted a list of the standards of the true congregation that came from the book "Reasoning from the Sciptures", which was deemed "plagiarism" and removed by people whom I am not allowed even mention even though I took no credit for that list and gave full credit to whence it came. It seems the real reason is that material from the WBTS should be discouraged if not disallowed outright.
I even expect this post to be removed also, and may even result in me being banned. But if that is the case, I shall rejoice knowing that it was because of my publishing the truth was the cause. Acts 5:29, 41 John 15:19-20

 

[MurphtheSurf]

I am not sure that being Roman Catholic is much better than being Jewish. However it is difficult to construe either as false religion as was the case with the Babylonian religion. .

A careful study of the Bible and the ability to put aside church teachings momentarily as you study will reveal the falsehoods that christendom clings to. As these things are weeded out, it becomes easy to identify the false church. Studying the authentic makes it easier to identify the counterfeit.

The prophesy of Babylon the Great was named as such because Babylon had many gods and many temples to these gods and they were allowed because to them one was as good as the other. Yet all of them had basically the same theologies, triune gods, immortality of the soul, and a place of eternal torment in a place of flames and horrible monsters.
Sound familiar?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can you name me a "church" that doesn't have those things? Wouldn't that "church" be merely a sign that says "go home to pray and keep your praying to yourself"?

Unprogrammed Quakers. Their "meetings for worship" are actually pretty interesting. You can read more about them here:

Quaker Worship

No clergy (or no laity, more accurately), so no preachers standing in front of an audience. No prayers, really... though there's a lot of silent "expectant waiting", which I suppose might fall under the umbrella of prayer, but I wouldn't categorize it that way.

All things that are not God die of their own weight.

If so, then what should me make of the fact that religion of all stripes have avoided "dying of their own weight"?

 

[sojourner]

In my first post on this thread I pasted a list of the standards of the true congregation that came from the book "Reasoning from the Sciptures", which was deemed "plagiarism" and removed by people whom I am not allowed even mention even though I took no credit for that list and gave full credit to whence it came. It seems the real reason is that material from the WBTS should be discouraged if not disallowed outright.
I even expect this post to be removed also, and may even result in me being banned. But if that is the case, I shall rejoice knowing that it was because of my publishing the truth was the cause. Acts 5:29, 41 John 15:19-20

Why does the WBTS have the final word on what comprises "true religion?" I doubt it's the most authoritative and unbiased source you could find.

 

[sojourner]

it becomes easy to identify the false church.

What attribute(s), precisely, make(s) a church "false" as opposed to "true?"

The prophesy of Babylon the Great was named as such because Babylon had many gods and many temples to these gods and they were allowed because to them one was as good as the other. Yet all of them had basically the same theologies, triune gods, immortality of the soul, and a place of eternal torment in a place of flames and horrible monsters.
Sound familiar?

Are you hinting that Xy is neither polyvalent nor multifaceted? Are you suggesting that God is not Triune, and that, to suggest that God is Triune is to make oneself a whore? Is that your stance?

 

[sojourner]

If so, then what should me make of the fact that religion of all stripes have avoided "dying of their own weight"?

"Because they are of God" leaps to mind...

 

[MurphtheSurf]

What attribute(s), precisely, make(s) a church "false" as opposed to "true?"

Basically the false teachings of men make it a false religion and in the case of christendom the attributes I posted earlier are a clear indicator.

Are you hinting that Xy is neither polyvalent nor multifaceted?

Care to translate that into English? I failed my legalese course in high school.

Are you suggesting that God is not Triune, and that, to suggest that God is Triune is to make oneself a whore? Is that your stance?

I'm not suggesting that, I am proclaiming that as a truth. There is no way the Bible teaches "trinity", although certain scriptures can be forced to make look like there is one. And I never called anyone or anything a whore, so don't presume to put words in my mouth.
That is a part of my stance, yes.

 

[MurphtheSurf]

Why does the WBTS have the final word on what comprises "true religion?" I doubt it's the most authoritative and unbiased source you could find.

If you wish, I can send you that list to your private message board upon request and you can decide and meditate on that for yourself. Just say the word.

 

[sojourner]

Basically the false teachings of men make it a false religion and in the case of christendom the attributes I posted earlier are a clear indicator.

How do we know them to be false any more than what's found in the Bible, or the Koran, or the other sacred texts? Didn't Jesus say, "Do these things," not, "believe these things about me?"

Care to translate that into English? I failed my legalese course in high school.

Xy is a multivalent religion, meaning that it involves multiple interpretations, meanings and practices.

Xy is also pan-cultural -- it has no culture of its own and can be expressed through any number of cultural means.

I'm not suggesting that, I am proclaiming that as a truth. There is no way the Bible teaches "trinity", although certain scriptures can be forced to make look like there is one.

Who put you in charge of proclaiming absolute truth? There is way that the texts allude to the full Divinity of Christ. Certain scriptures can legitimately be interpreted that way. But... since Xy is a multivalent religion, you're welcome to see it another way and remain in the good graces of the religion, as far as I'm concerned.

Xy is not nearly so narrow-minded as you're making it out to be, which is why:

If you wish, I can send you that list to your private message board upon request and you can decide and meditate on that for yourself. Just say the word.

I say, "no thanks." I'd rather take the broad and hospitable view.

 

[Rakhel]

I am not sure that being Roman Catholic is much better than being Jewish. However it is difficult to construe either as false religion as was the case with the Babylonian religion.

As for fantasies such as the Princess Bride, I wouldn't take them too seriously.

Probably each entity thinks that an error in the other entity constitutes false religion but that is not my understanding of the Biblical origen.

On the other hand born again Christians tend to think of their faith as the only living faith. I suspect that is a matter of degree. Even a Jew or a Muslim has a chance within the law to have a living faith. It just isn't going to be any where near as vibrant as faith in Jesus. So the Roman C atholic church can claim to still be alive because it exists but is the Spirit of God alive in it? That is difficult to assess. It does not appear that the teaching favors it.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

A careful study of the Bible and the ability to put aside church teachings momentarily as you study will reveal the falsehoods that christendom clings to. As these things are weeded out, it becomes easy to identify the false church. Studying the authentic makes it easier to identify the counterfeit.

I think any church based on the Bible must be false, since the Bible is just an old book that people take way too seriously.

 

[sojourner]

A careful study of the Bible and the ability to put aside church teachings momentarily as you study will reveal the falsehoods that christendom clings to

Putting aside church teaching means also putting aside the Bible, because the Bible is part of the church teaching.

 

[kepha31]

We revere the Bible as we would the body of Christ.

12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)
But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)

13. In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous "condescension" of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, "that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature." (11) For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.
Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation - Dei Verbum

 

[*Deleted*]

The "True" Church? Sounds like saying, what's the one true "person"? What's the one "True" marriage?
What's the one "True" scientist? What's the one "True" doctor?
What's the one "True" anything....? And if there is that "Truth" claim by whomever (which makes no sense at all to me), I think of Fitzgerald's quote, "Show me a hero, and I'll write you a tragedy."