Who Is The True Church Of Jesus Christ?

[TheGreaterGame]

The personal growth that comes out of serving a mission is just as valuable (if not more valuable) than any conversion to the church. I didn't personally baptize a single person on my mission, and I'd go again knowing how it would turn out in the end.

I came closer to Christ and thereby brought other people closer to Christ. Everything isn't about which religion is right. Some things are about just giving up our time and serving other people.

I belive that your most correct in this post . . . in that you learned a lot and you helped a lot . . . this is a good thing . . . I myself have been helped out by Mormon missionaries on a couple of projects and I appreciated their help quite a bit. And I think most organized religions are seeking to do good for humanity, although this is not the case for some, I look to the bible . . . and my theology is bound to God's word and His Holy Spirit . . . and I see in it a True Church made up of people who follow the teachings of the Bible, exclusive faith in Jesus to the exclusions of all others, and the need for the redemption . . . and no one can see the Universal Church, but God . . . this of course is the essence of this thread.

 

[Searcher of Light]

Its a pity God doesnt announce in a way which no one can dispute which is the true "church" - read religion instead of church.

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

So there is no true church then.

Yes. I know of at least one, which is where I attend. You know of no churches that try to do all of the things I mentioned? I mean, no church is perfect, but we do try.

it would be logical to assume that it would also have prophets and apostles, don't you think?

I'm not sure about this, but weren't the apostles men who knew Jesus personally? Like, in life?

I would say churches today must have disciples. And prophets? I don't believe God sends prophets anymore.

THIS is why it is important to have different religions. Every Christian has a certain level of belief in Jesus Christ and his teachings. Some believe all of His teachings and others only accept a few of His teachings.

Ummmm...that was sort of my point. Churches who don't accept all of Jesus' teachings aren't a true church.

If that were true, the true church could not have existed before the Bible, and apostles must have belonged to something other than the true church.

Before Jesus came, there was no church. The apostles started the church, and they knew of Jesus's teachings.

I would have to say that the answer to the original question of this thread is the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

The one that has added to and taken away from the Bible for centuries? The one that has no regard for what God says? The one that does only what they feel like doing? It is my personal opinion that the Roman Catholic Church is one of the farthest things from the true church, but I understand that others here believe differently, and I respect that.

Not everyone that lives and dies will get a chance to hear about Jesus Christ and salvation. Should these people not have a chance at hearing the Gospel?

In this day and age, most people are able to hear the gospel. But if they don't, that is to bad, so sad. I know that sounds cruel, but Jesus told us that we must repent and be baptized to be allowed to enter heaven. If you have not done this, then you won't get to go to heaven. I'm sorry, but there will be no chances after death.

If you claim to have a loving God, then this loving God will give them a chance if they didn't hear it in this lifetime, it just doesn't make a whit of sense to say, you didn't hear it here on earth, well buddy, your out of luck.

As God's people, it is our job to spread the word and make sure everyone knows about it.

If people will get to hear of the gospel in the after life (Post-Mortem, thanks) it doesn't make any sense that you would waste any money on missions . . . also you should just let people live like "Hell" because in the end . . . all will probrably go to heaven any way . . . right? I mean who would turn down the gospel in the after life?

Seriously. If we're al going to get a second chance, what is the point of not sinning. According to what you (not God) say, I could sin all I want to-I could become a murderer, get drunk all the time, and put toilet paper in people's trees on Halloween. Starting now, I could never set foot in a church again, and become an atheist, yet I will still get that second chance and get to Heaven. That is what doesn't make sense! You cannot argue with this. It's common sense!


Ok, that's really all I have to say I guess, I'm getting tired.

 

[jonny]

I belive that your most correct in this post . . . in that you learned a lot and you helped a lot . . . this is a good thing . . . I myself have been helped out by Mormon missionaries on a couple of projects and I appreciated their help quite a bit. And I think most organized religions are seeking to do good for humanity, although this is not the case for some, I look to the bible . . . and my theology is bound to God's word and His Holy Spirit . . . and I see in it a True Church made up of people who follow the teachings of the Bible, exclusive faith in Jesus to the exclusions of all others, and the need for the redemption . . . and no one can see the Universal Church, but God . . . this of course is the essence of this thread.

I commend you for the dedication to your faith. I agree that faith in Jesus Christ should be the basis of all Christian belief - he is the only path to eternal life and salvation.

 

[jonny]

Its a pity God doesnt announce in a way which no one can dispute which is the true "church" - read religion instead of church.

What would be the point of faith then?

 

[Smoke]

Tanach?

I don't know of any Christians who restrict themselves to the Tanach.

More importantly, the same principle applies: can knowledge of God depend on any book? If so, there can be no knowledge of God till the book is completed. It defies reason.

 

[Searcher of Light]

What would be the point of faith then?

God wouldnt do such a thing; it would violate free will for one thing. I was just lamenting the confusion of religion.

 

[Smoke]

I'm not denying the Trinitarian Creeds . . . I think that its implied when I refer to the Jesus of the Bible . . . however, the principle of what I am trying to say is that the Bible is a book that deals with how man has become seperated by the sinfulness of Adam and God's plan to redeem His people . . . enter Jesus and the need for forgiveness and amazing Grace, but it is contingent upon exclusive faith in Christ alone.

I didn't suppose for a moment that you were denying the Trinity, but that's all the more reason your statement of faith is inadequate. As for the creeds, though, you emphasize matters they didn't touch, and ignore things they stress. You've redefined Christianity in a way that's peculiarly Calvinist, but in a way think would have displeased Calvin himself. And I still believe "exclusive faith in Christ alone" is a peculiar way to express a Trinitarian faith, or for that matter any faith that claims to be based on the Bible, since such a faith, Trinitarian or not, exalts the Bible -- however inadvertently or unconsciously -- above any authority, including Jesus himself.

 

[Smoke]

They had the teachings of Jesus and the Septuigint. I think she is close to what I am saying.

The earliest Christians had no Gospels, or even the epistles of Paul, and many of the early converts from paganism would have been unfamiliar with the Septuagint as well. Were they Christians even without Bibles?

 

[Smoke]

I belive this is the essence of the true Church of Christ . . . a people who worship Jesus and follow His teachings and are led by the Holy Spirit who seek God through His whole and complete word--the Bible to the exclusion of all other religions, gods, demi-gods, false prophets, and false letters and books.

It's good that you contrast the Bible to other religions, gods, etc.; it shows that on some level you realize you've elevated the Bible to the level of the divine. But the Bible is just a collection of writings of men, and the Word of God -- as the Bible itself will tell you -- is Jesus himself.

 

[searcher63]

Searcher,

You probably disagree with my view of Hell because I only presented a small part of it. The Latter-day Saints believe in a temporary hell (the Spirit Prison Jesus visited), but we also believe in a permanent Hell. I'm not sure that we necessarily think of it as a literal lake of fire (personally, I'd rather it be hot than cold if I were going to have to spend eternity there ), but we do believe it's real. The "temporary hell" I described will continue to exist only until the individuals who are there (i.e. the wicked who died without having heard Christ's gospel) have had the opportunity to learn of Him and choose to either accept or reject Him. Once we have all been resurrected and stand before God to be judged, our final destination, be it Heaven or Hell, will be permanent. We probably don't believe as many people will end up in Hell as most Christians do, but we definitely do believe some will be there. Revelation speaks of a third of the host of Heaven who rebelled when Lucifer was cast out. We believe they will spend eternity in Hell, as will those who commit the unpardonable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.

Thank you for the clarification. I still have a problem with the belief in a "Permenant HELL" as it does not answer the questions I popsed in my last post. ( I.E. John recieving REVELAION as "SIGNS", and the verse which says :" Death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire."
Also the whole notion that GOD would torment any creature is so foriegn to me. I just dont see him that way. I have used this example and every time I have not recieved a "BAD" rebuttle, let alone a decent one...but would a human father torment his child ( even a wicked one) FOR ETERNITY??? TO WHAT PURPOSE?? It would serve NO purpose except vindictiveness on the part of the Almighty...and to instill Improper fear as a motive to serve GOD...Not LOVE As a MOTIVE..which he deserves!!

 

[jonny]

Yes. I know of at least one, which is where I attend. You know of no churches that try to do all of the things I mentioned? I mean, no church is perfect, but we do try.

The comment was out of jest more than anything, but as with all jokes, there is some truth.

I don't think that there is any Christian church that doesn't add their own interpretations to the Bible, which I would consider "adding" to the Bible. Perhaps they don't change the sciptures, but almost all are guilty of changing the meanings in one way or another. For example, many Christians hold to the creeds of the early church so highly that it is as if they are printed in the Bible. Whether or not the creeds are the correct interpretation of the Bible is a debate for another thread (which has been started numerous times). The fact that many Christian churches are excluded from Christianity by some because they accept the Bible but don't accept these non-cannonized interpretations demonstrates that belief in the creed is more important than or at least as important as belief in the Bible to many Christians. In this sense, they have added to the bible.

Second, there was only one perfect person who ever existed and his name was Jesus Christ. Therefore, your second point that we "only do what God has commanded" is impossible. You say that no church is perfect, but isn't doing only what God has commanded perfection?

Third, I believe, in general, that people who call themselves Christians do a very poor job in living their religion and following the example of Christ. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of good Christians, but they are in every church, not confined to one church. I don't think that following the example of the Apostles and New Testament apostles should be our standard. We should strive to live Christ-like lives with Christ-like love.

I guess I felt that your definition of the "true church" demanded perfection in my eyes, which you admit isn't reality.

My personal belief is that we need to concentrate on whether or not we are living Christ-like lives. The gospel of Jesus Christ is simple. It's all about love. If the church we attend does not assist us with becoming like Christ, it is a failure. You might as well stay home and watch MTV.

 

[Smoke]

So to answer the question from a historic point of view Judaism would be the true "church" of Jesus.

Orthodox Judaism as we know it developed from the teachings of the rabbis and the Pharisees, and is directly contrary to the teachings of Jesus. No other Jewish sect from the time of Jesus survives, so any Judaism that was the "church" of Jesus would have to be a modern revival of an ancient Judaism. Messianic Judaism -- which 90 percent of the time is little more than Baptists in fancy dress, playing at being Jews -- hardly qualifies.

 

[TheGreaterGame]

I didn't suppose for a moment that you were denying the Trinity, but that's all the more reason your statement of faith is inadequate. As for the creeds, though, you emphasize matters they didn't touch, and ignore things they stress. You've redefined Christianity in a way that's peculiarly Calvinist, but in a way think would have displeased Calvin himself. And I still believe "exclusive faith in Christ alone" is a peculiar way to express a Trinitarian faith, or for that matter any faith that claims to be based on the Bible, since such a faith, Trinitarian or not, exalts the Bible -- however inadvertently or unconsciously -- above any authority, including Jesus himself.

Well, I'm definitely not affraid of my Reformed heritage, but I think we do have to keep working on our definition of Christianity, this is my reason for digging further and further for what I think to be the essence of the Bible . . . on the other hand you and I disagree on the written word of God . . . I do in fact belive that the bible is inspired wholly of God and therefore when God's word- the bible is spoken- then God has spoken. All scripture is God breathed . . . and you live not by bread alone but by the words of God.

 

[TheGreaterGame]

The earliest Christians had no Gospels, or even the epistles of Paul, and many of the early converts from paganism would have been unfamiliar with the Septuagint as well. Were they Christians even without Bibles?

But they had God's word . . . and God's word, NT or OT is about grace and mercy

 

[searcher63]

Thank you for the clarification. I still have a problem with the belief in a "Permenant HELL" as it does not answer the questions I popsed in my last post. ( I.E. John recieving REVELAION as "SIGNS", and the verse which says :" Death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire."
Also the whole notion that GOD would torment any creature is so foriegn to me. I just dont see him that way. I have used this example and every time I have not recieved a "BAD" rebuttle, let alone a decent one...but would a human father torment his child ( even a wicked one) FOR ETERNITY??? TO WHAT PURPOSE?? It would serve NO purpose except vindictiveness on the part of the Almighty...and to instill Improper fear as a motive to serve GOD...Not LOVE As a MOTIVE..which he deserves!!

P.S.: I DO agree with you on the HEAT thing though!!!:bounce To Quote Dr. Evil: " I'm FREEZIN' Mr. Bigglesworth!!

 

[TheGreaterGame]

I didn't suppose for a moment that you were denying the Trinity, but that's all the more reason your statement of faith is inadequate. As for the creeds, though, you emphasize matters they didn't touch, and ignore things they stress. You've redefined Christianity in a way that's peculiarly Calvinist, but in a way think would have displeased Calvin himself. And I still believe "exclusive faith in Christ alone" is a peculiar way to express a Trinitarian faith, or for that matter any faith that claims to be based on the Bible, since such a faith, Trinitarian or not, exalts the Bible -- however inadvertently or unconsciously -- above any authority, including Jesus himself.

The trinitarian issue is one that has been hammered out . . . one which I have no need to defend . . . orthodox Christianity is trinitarian . . . Christ deity is intact, mission accomplished . . . we seperate Christian from non-Christian on these coucils that clearly defined said doctrines . . . I'm trying to refine, even more so true Church/true Christianity.

 

[Smoke]

But they had God's word . . .

Indeed, the followers of Jesus in all generations have had God's Word, which is Jesus -- whether they had Bibles or not, and whether they could read them or not.

and God's word, NT or OT is about grace and mercy

But as you explain it, it's largely about condemnation and retribution.

 

[Smoke]

The trinitarian issue is one that has been hammered out . . . one which I have no need to defend . . . orthodox Christianity is trinitarian . . . Christ deity is intact, mission accomplished . . . we seperate Christian from non-Christian on these coucils that clearly defined said doctrines . . . I'm trying to refine, even more so true Church/true Christianity.

So the teachings of Jesus were not enough, and the teachings of the apostles had to be added to them. And the teachings of Jesus and the apostles were not enough, and the teachings of the councils had to be added to them. And now the teachings of Jesus and the apostles and the councils are not enough, and the teachings of John Piper must be added to them. This is how Christianity multiplies divisions and heaps errors upon errors. Did no one follow Jesus before the Bible, or the councils, or John Piper? If not, then how can anyone know the truth today? It may be that some further elaborate of Piper's teachings is necessary and indispensible, and will never be made in our lifetime. But if it's possible to follow Jesus without all this elaboration of belief, then why pretend it's all necessary?

Jesus is the good shepherd, and knows his sheep, and is known of his own. The same is not true of the Bible, or the councils, or John Piper.

 

[Katzpur]

Thank you for the clarification. I still have a problem with the belief in a "Permenant HELL" as it does not answer the questions I popsed in my last post. ( I.E. John recieving REVELAION as "SIGNS", and the verse which says :" Death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire."
Also the whole notion that GOD would torment any creature is so foriegn to me. I just dont see him that way. I have used this example and every time I have not recieved a "BAD" rebuttle, let alone a decent one...but would a human father torment his child ( even a wicked one) FOR ETERNITY??? TO WHAT PURPOSE?? It would serve NO purpose except vindictiveness on the part of the Almighty...and to instill Improper fear as a motive to serve GOD...Not LOVE As a MOTIVE..which he deserves!!

About all I can add to my previous comments is that I believe that the only individuals who will actually spend eternity in Hell ("Outer Darkness") are those who have no desire to be with God. I have a book (not part of the LDS canon, but an excellent one about our beliefs, nevertheless) called "Latter Days." In it, the author (Coke Newell) states:

"Hell, in the end, will be a tiny, forgotten corner of the universe. The great God will find no solace in the path these few have chosen. They were his children. Yet all has been offered: light, strength, repentance, help, knowledge, and a grace sufficient to cover all sins should each of them merely have sought forgiveness and a better way. They simply weren't interested. None of them would be happy in heaven, anyway, and perhaps their self-selected misery is their only reward for having tried mortality."

We believe that the vast, vast majority of God's children will end up in Heaven. Not all will receive the same glory, because Jesus pointed out that He will reward every man according to his works. But I'd say we have the biggest Heaven and the littlest Hell of any Christian denomination around. We fully expect to see people there who lived their lives as Catholics, Methodists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, pagans, and atheists.