Elements Of The True Church?

[mfbukowski]

I see this in the Catechism:

 

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."⁶³ Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

 

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"⁶⁴ allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

 

Now from this, we see that there really is no definitive dogma on where unbaptized infants go (presumably because there is no definitive revelation saying that they are or aren't saved, meanwhile it is known that baptism is necessary for salvation), however there is cause to hope that there is a way for them to be saved without baptism (and the document that paragraph 1261 comes from goes into reasons why).  Today, Catholics are free to believe that they indeed are saved into the eternal presence of God, or that they go to the Limbo of Infants.

 

I wonder how old the baptism of desire (not necessarily for infants) teaching is.

 

But anyway, my point was just that it is interesting that both Catholicism and Mormonism have teachings surrounding what happens to those that never hear the Gospel.

Indeed, and that sounds in those terms virtually like universal salvation, which is also true in Mormonism.   "Every kneww shall bow...."

 

I mean, KNOWING the need for baptism, who would not desire baptism?  "You can burn in hell or get baptized- which would you prefer?"

 

I suppose ultimately then in both churches, the practical need for baptism becomes almost useless if you look at it that way, unless it is seen as a ritual which shows commitment to follow Christ- like "step over this line and you will be on my side- if you don't step over it, you won't be"

 

But I suppose humans need that kind of ritual, or more realistically, to be forced to make that decision in a clear way.

 

But if we are universally saved anyway, what is the need for any church?  I mean this applies to Mormonism as much as Catholicism.  Surely no one would want to burn in hell, hypothetical or otherwise.

Edited April 21, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Okrahomer]

If the church really does get $8bn in tithing/year then they probably give around $0.5-0.8bn/year to the poor and needy via fast offering*. Is that enough or would you want the entire tithe to be given to the poor? I suppose if we met in houses and bought our own manuals it would be possible. But a bit unrealistic!

 

*This is a rough estimate based on a few sources where fast offering is in the range of being around 0.5-1% of income (or about 5-10% of the tithing contribution). The UK charities return would suggest this amount for example.

 

I think your fast offerring estimate is a pretty good one.  Based on my own unit clerking experience (and contacts) in a few places around the world, I think the global figure may be a bit higher--between $1b and $1.5b annually.  

 

The PEF is another very powerful avenue through which we are able to help improve lives around the world.  Some facts about the program (at least those I gleaned from a couple of online sources):  as of 2011, more than 50,000 people in 53 countries had been assisted with their education; the average participant is 24 years of age; the average length of schooling is 2.5 years; the graduation rate is 70% (which is better than the US college graduation rate); 90% of PEF grads are now employed--which is a remarkable employment rate in developing countries (Brazil has 13,000 PEF participants alone, with large numbers in Peru, Chile, Mexico and African nations as well); 48% are male (82% of whom are returned missionaries) and 52% are female (18% of whom are returned missionaries); the graduates are earning 3X - 5X more than they earned before graduation; the average tuition is $1,112.  I feel it is a 'sleeping giant' program of the Church that (because of the multiplying effect of education) does more good than the paltry sum my wife and I give each month.

Edited April 21, 2014 by Okrahomer

[danielwoods]

Recently, Tad Callister gave a CES devotional on The Blueprint of Christ's Church. https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2014/01/what-is-the-blueprint-of-christs-church?lang=eng

Whatever faith you are, if someone was looking for "the true church" today, what do you think are elements or characteristics that shoud be found in the true Church of Christ, and why?

 

John 4:24

King James Version (KJV)

²⁴ God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

 

 

Galatians 5:22-23

 

King James Version (KJV)

 

²² But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

²³ Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

 

 

That's it, Truth and the fruits of the Spirit.

 

No claims made to be the "true church," no ordinances, no self-appointed offices. Simply the fruit of the spirit manifest in a group of believers. 

[why me]

That's it, Truth and the fruits of the Spirit.

 

No claims made to be the "true church," no ordinances, no self-appointed offices. Simply the fruit of the spirit manifest in a group of believers.

However, we do know that the early church had bishops and other positions. I can also say that the spirit is alive and well in the lds church. It seems to manifest itself quite often. And this was the case from the very beginning of the church's foundation.

[danielwoods]

However, we do know that the early church had bishops and other positions. I can also say that the spirit is alive and well in the lds church. It seems to manifest itself quite often. And this was the case from the very beginning of the church's foundation.

 

I understand. I just think the very question betrays a bias, that being, there must be a "true" church (organization). However, the word "Church" is a reference to the people, not an organization, 

 

1577 ekklēsía(from 1537 /ek, "out from andto" and 2564 /kaléō, "to call") – properly, people called out from the world and to God, the outcome being the Church (the mysticalbody of Christ)

 

The "called out ones" Literally. So, the true church isn't an organization with rules and regulations made by man. Rather it is people who are "called out" of the world. They could be anyone anywhere, at anytime. Since Christ is the head of his church, he knows who are his and they are known by their fruits of the Spirit. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

John 4:24

King James Version (KJV)

²⁴ God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

 

 

Galatians 5:22-23

 

King James Version (KJV)

 

²² But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

²³ Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

 

 

That's it, Truth and the fruits of the Spirit.

 

No claims made to be the "true church," no ordinances, no self-appointed offices. Simply the fruit of the spirit manifest in a group of believers. 

 

I wonder why the Bible has more verses than just those? Surely there is more in the bible than just what you cherry picked?

[3DOP]

Manageable

Of course! Duh. I can't remember names anymore...sometimes words...I'd get scared but what can I do? Thank you...or as they say it down under, 10-Q. (I learned that from Pahoran...its probably everywhere.)

[teddyaware]

I wonder why the Bible has more verses than just those? Surely there is more in the bible than just what you cherry picked?

Here's where our Evangelical friends seem to often make a mistake: They interpret the Bible in the light of their own experience as modern Protestant Christians, rather than taking a step or two back in order to try to imagine what church life would have been like for the believers during New Testament times. The Evangelical believers of today, by their own admission, attend Churches that are organizationally not at all like the Apostolic era Church of Jesus Christ. Strangely, it seems although they read the same Bible verses you and I read, it apparently never dawns on them that their churches are not patterned after the well-documented New Testament model. What follows is just a mere sampling of the New Testament verses that describe the chosen Church officers of the New Testament era Church of Christ -- officers that, at least according to Daniel, did not exist in the Church of Christ centered in Jerusalem 

(Christ) chose twelve, whom also he named apostles: Luke 6:13 . ( Luke 6:12–16 . )

The Lord appointed other seventy: Luke 10:1 .

I have chosen you, and ordained you: John 15:16 .

take part of this ministry and apostleship: Acts 1:25 .

when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them: Acts 6:6 .

there were in the church … prophets and teachers: Acts 13:1 .

ordained them elders in every church: Acts 14:23 .

apostles and elders came together: Acts 15:6 .

ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular: 1 Cor. 12:27 .

built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets: Eph. 2:20 .

gave some, apostles; and some, prophets: Eph. 4:11 .

with the bishops and deacons: Philip. 1:1 .

ordain elders in every city: Titus 1:5 .

 

Speaking of the aforementioned mental exercise where one tries to imagine what it would be like to be a New Testament Christian, it's hard to imagine members of the New Testament era Church would have ever entertained the notion that there would ever come a time when the chosen Church officers they served with would no longer be indispensable to the spiritual health of the Church. I ask non-LDS Christians to imagine that you're an Apostolic era member of the Church of Jesus Christ and you hear the following cogent words of an ordained Apostle of Christ read over the pulpit:

10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: (Eph 4)

 

After hearing and seriously considering the above admonition from the Apostle Paul, can anyone honestly say that it would have ever dawned on New Testament era Christians that the day of living Apostles and Prophets would one day come to an end and that the new church organizational arrangement -- sans the original chosen Church officers -- would have approved by God? 

Edited April 21, 2014 by teddyaware

[danielwoods]

Here's where our Evangelical friends seem to often make a mistake: They interpret the Bible in the light of their own experience as modern Protestant Christians, rather than taking a step or two back in order to try to imagine what church life would have been like for the believers during New Testament times. The Evangelical believers of today, by their own admission, attend Churches that are organizationally not at all like the Apostolic era Church of Jesus Christ. Strangely, it seems although they read the same Bible verses you and I read, it apparently never dawns on them that their churches are not patterned after the well-documented New Testament model. What follows is just a mere sampling of the New Testament verses that describe the chosen Church officers of the New Testament era Church of Christ -- officers that, at least according to Daniel, did not exist in the Church of Christ centered in Jerusalem 

(Christ) chose twelve, whom also he named apostles: Luke 6:13 . ( Luke 6:12–16 . )

The Lord appointed other seventy: Luke 10:1 .

I have chosen you, and ordained you: John 15:16 .

take part of this ministry and apostleship: Acts 1:25 .

when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them: Acts 6:6 .

there were in the church … prophets and teachers: Acts 13:1 .

ordained them elders in every church: Acts 14:23 .

apostles and elders came together: Acts 15:6 .

ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular: 1 Cor. 12:27 .

built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets: Eph. 2:20 .

gave some, apostles; and some, prophets: Eph. 4:11 .

with the bishops and deacons: Philip. 1:1 .

ordain elders in every city: Titus 1:5 .

 

Speaking of the aforementioned mental exercise where one tries to imagine what it would be like to be a New Testament Christian, it's hard to imagine members of the New Testament era Church would have ever entertained the notion that there would ever come a time when the chosen Church officers they served with would no longer be indispensable to the spiritual health of the Church. I ask non-LDS Christians to imagine that you're an Apostolic era member of the Church of Jesus Christ and you hear the following cogent words of an ordained Apostle of Christ read over the pulpit:

10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: (Eph 4)

 

After hearing and seriously considering the above admonition from the Apostle Paul, can anyone honestly say that it would have ever dawned on New Testament era Christians that the day of living Apostles and Prophets would one day come to an end and that the new church organizational arrangement -- sans the original chosen Church officers -- would have approved by God? 

 

 

Where did I say that they don't exist, or came to an end? 

 

What I said was, 1) the church is the people who are called out from the world  and 2) you will know them by their fruits. 

 

With reference to your question about organization. Yes, Christ still gives his people apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. Christ still leads his church by his spirit. 

 

The difference is your interpretation of the "church" as an organization as opposed to a group of people. 

 

Jesus didn't say come unto this church and I will give you rest. He said, come unto me. It's a personal connection with him that makes all the difference.

[ChristKnight]

The difference is your interpretation of the "church" as an organization as opposed to a group of people. 

 

Jesus didn't say come unto this church and I will give you rest. He said, come unto me. It's a personal connection with him that makes all the difference.

 

I don't see this distinction.  An organization is a group of people.  Further, those that believe in a "visible" church also believe in the importance of a personal connection with Jesus Christ as one's Savior. 

[ChristKnight]

Here's where our Evangelical friends seem to often make a mistake: They interpret the Bible in the light of their own experience as modern Protestant Christians, rather than taking a step or two back in order to try to imagine what church life would have been like for the believers during New Testament times. The Evangelical believers of today, by their own admission, attend Churches that are organizationally not at all like the Apostolic era Church of Jesus Christ. Strangely, it seems although they read the same Bible verses you and I read, it apparently never dawns on them that their churches are not patterned after the well-documented New Testament model. What follows is just a mere sampling of the New Testament verses that describe the chosen Church officers of the New Testament era Church of Christ -- officers that, at least according to Daniel, did not exist in the Church of Christ centered in Jerusalem 

(Christ) chose twelve, whom also he named apostles: Luke 6:13 . ( Luke 6:12–16 . )

The Lord appointed other seventy: Luke 10:1 .

I have chosen you, and ordained you: John 15:16 .

take part of this ministry and apostleship: Acts 1:25 .

when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them: Acts 6:6 .

there were in the church … prophets and teachers: Acts 13:1 .

ordained them elders in every church: Acts 14:23 .

apostles and elders came together: Acts 15:6 .

ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular: 1 Cor. 12:27 .

built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets: Eph. 2:20 .

gave some, apostles; and some, prophets: Eph. 4:11 .

with the bishops and deacons: Philip. 1:1 .

ordain elders in every city: Titus 1:5 .

 

Speaking of the aforementioned mental exercise where one tries to imagine what it would be like to be a New Testament Christian, it's hard to imagine members of the New Testament era Church would have ever entertained the notion that there would ever come a time when the chosen Church officers they served with would no longer be indispensable to the spiritual health of the Church. I ask non-LDS Christians to imagine that you're an Apostolic era member of the Church of Jesus Christ and you hear the following cogent words of an ordained Apostle of Christ read over the pulpit:

10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: (Eph 4)

 

After hearing and seriously considering the above admonition from the Apostle Paul, can anyone honestly say that it would have ever dawned on New Testament era Christians that the day of living Apostles and Prophets would one day come to an end and that the new church organizational arrangement -- sans the original chosen Church officers -- would have approved by God? 

 

Your posts are always interesting, thanks.  I'm curious to hear more of what you think are essential elements for those seeking to find the "true Church" (I see you're a convert to the LDS faith so I'm wondering if that is how you approached finding that church, i.e. seeing what church today has what you see as the essential elements of the "true church"). 

[ChristKnight]

The first requirement of "the True Church" is that it would not be hesitant about teaching its own mission as "the True Church" with all that that entails. Most visible churches have such interrrupted historical claims that the whole idea of "the True Church" would be absurd. Apart from Restoration theories how does one explain an interruptions from the time of the Apostles that ordinarily last for centuries and longer? So these kinds of churches don't make any claim to being "the True Church", and so they speak of an invisible church that exists throughout history. But we still need to be baptized, we are still apparently instructed to observe a remembrance of the Last Supper and to know who among us qualifies to receive of its elements, we still need to know whose disciplinary authority comes from God and whose doesn't. 

 

There are many many practical reasons why people must be able to identify a visible church to which they are bound in doctrine and practice. Otherwise, the Christian can just hop around whenever they are disciplined or find themselves in disagreement about the church's teaching. So firstly, "the True Church" cannot be one of those which denies that it is the "True Church". This step alone eliminates thousands of different churches which have larger or smaller numbers of followers and makes the number of "competitors" for our attention much more managable. Nobody who is looking for the True Church in any area of the world needs to consider the whole phone book. Most "churches" will deny, at least implicitly, that they are "the True Church".   

 

Good night, I'm losing my mind. Somebody help me. How in the world do you spell "managible"? I've tried several combinations and they all look wrong and "spell check" doesn't like them either.

 

3DOP

 

I completely agree with you. 

 

Also, I think from the Catholic/Orthodox perspective, an important aspect of the "true Church" would be one that holds to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (and not only holds to this belief, but has it, through valid priesthood ordination/apostolic succession).  Dare I say that is probably one of the most important elements from that perspective, if not the most.

[Calm]

Of course! Duh. I can't remember names anymore...sometimes words...I'd get scared but what can I do? Thank you...or as they say it down under, 10-Q. (I learned that from Pahoran...its probably everywhere.)

Me too.

Google and me are best buds.

I wish the Church would institute wearing name tags at church. It is so humiliating not to remember someone's name I have known for over a decade.

[teddyaware]

Where did I say that they don't exist, or came to an end? 

 

What I said was, 1) the church is the people who are called out from the world  and 2) you will know them by their fruits. 

 

With reference to your question about organization. Yes, Christ still gives his people apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. Christ still leads his church by his spirit. 

 

The difference is your interpretation of the "church" as an organization as opposed to a group of people. 

 

Jesus didn't say come unto this church and I will give you rest. He said, come unto me. It's a personal connection with him that makes all the difference.

It seems like you want it both ways. You say you accept apostles and prophets but seem to reject them in their defined New Testament roles.

Would the members of the seven churches in Asia, to whom the Apostle John the gave solemn admonitions from the Lord that were absolutely imperative for them to obey, be severing their personal connection to Christ if they felt it was absolutely necessary to obey a man who claimed to receive a revelation from God? Using the New Testament as guide, where does one draw the line between following the Lord and following mortal men when those men are Prophets of God?

When Peter received the revelation that the Gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles, could a member of the Church in that day reject Peter's inspired counsel and still be considered a member in good standing? And what if that man rejected the revelation given to Peter saying, "I follow the Lord and not Peter who is only a mere man. The Lord Himself said He was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel, so why should I give heed to this man when the Lord said otherwise concerning the Gentiles?" Could this man remain a member of the Lord's Church in good standing if he rejected this revelation uttered by Peter?

Edited April 22, 2014 by teddyaware

[Gervin]

When Peter received the revelation that the Gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles, could a member of the Church in that day reject Peter's inspired counsel and still be considered a member in good standing? 

 

How would you define "member in good standing"?  The perfect church gone astray is a myth / imho

 

Helmut Koester:

Christianity did not start out as a unified movement. We have to remember that the disciples were probably dispersed at a very early time.... That is, at a time where there was no fixed formulation what the set of Christian beliefs should be. What Christian rituals should be. What they should think about Jesus or what they should tell about Jesus. The sources that we have tell us that Christianity started as a very diverse movement, as the founding of churches... moved into very different cultural and language contexts....

[Gervin]

I suppose ultimately then in both churches, the practical need for baptism becomes almost useless if you look at it that way, unless it is seen as a ritual which shows commitment to follow Christ- like "step over this line and you will be on my side- if you don't step over it, you won't be"

 

It is a ritual of commitment as adherents would proudly affirm and as they would want to be "seen" by others. But "the step" is one of volition as an act, internalized (you don't have to routinely attend the mikvah).  True, "if you don't step over you won't be" but that simply affirms free will. It's neither a threat nor admonition.  I don't see baptism as the soft landing conclusion to the process of salvation. I see it more as the punctuation mark upon stepping over the line and never looking back.  It is to be felt and seen, in part, as a manifestation.

[teddyaware]

How would you define "member in good standing"?  The perfect church gone astray is a myth / imho

 

Helmut Koester:

Christianity did not start out as a unified movement. We have to remember that the disciples were probably dispersed at a very early time.... That is, at a time where there was no fixed formulation what the set of Christian beliefs should be. What Christian rituals should be. What they should think about Jesus or what they should tell about Jesus. The sources that we have tell us that Christianity started as a very diverse movement, as the founding of churches... moved into very different cultural and language contexts....

You continue to use Koester as your one of your authorities on the New Testament Church and I'll continue to use the New Testament itself as my authority. Reading the New Testament, as opposed to Koester, it's obvious there was one true church of Christ under the leadership of the Apostles, and those outside of that authority were not part of the unified body of Christ.

[danielwoods]

I don't see this distinction.  An organization is a group of people.  Further, those that believe in a "visible" church also believe in the importance of a personal connection with Jesus Christ as one's Savior. 

 

When you as a group, leave the building, the church has left the building. See the distinction now? The group isn't the organization or the building or anything that represents the group. The group is the church. God resides inside of us, not houses built by men. 

[danielwoods]

It seems like you want it both ways. You say you accept apostles and prophets but seem to reject them in their defined New Testament roles.

Would the members of the seven churches in Asia, to whom the Apostle John the gave solemn admonitions from the Lord that were absolutely imperative for them to obey, be severing their personal connection to Christ if they felt it was absolutely necessary to obey a man who claimed to receive a revelation from God? Using the New Testament as guide, where does one draw the line between following the Lord and following mortal men when those men are Prophets of God?

When Peter received the revelation that the Gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles, could a member of the Church in that day reject Peter's inspired counsel and still be considered a member in good standing? And what if that man rejected the revelation given to Peter saying, "I follow the Lord and not Peter who is only a mere man. The Lord Himself said He was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel, so why should I give heed to this man when the Lord said otherwise concerning the Gentiles?" Could this man remain a member of the Lord's Church in good standing if he rejected this revelation uttered by Peter?

 

You used the phrase, "a member of the Lord's Church"... Please tell me where this is found? Is it a phrase uttered by Christ? Anyone in the NT? 

 

Your questions:

 

1) No. Obeying a man (even if a prophet!) will not sever our connection to christ. Christ is greater than our ignorance. 

 

2) Where is the line drawn. I think that the Berean Jews are our best example of where the line is drawn.  

Acts17:^{11 "}These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

 

I don't believe blinding accepting what anyone says or teaches, even if they claim it comes from God, is good practice, nor do I see this in the scriptures. 

 

3) A member in good standing? I'm not clear where this comes from. When Peter had his revelation, not everyone accepted it. Does that mean that some lost their connection to Christ as a result? No, of course not. As I said, Christ is greater than our ignorance. 

 

4) Still unclear what member in good standing means. But, of course if someone doesn't agree with Peter, that's between them and God. Peter persuades by the spirit of God, he doesn't control people. 

[3DOP]

I completely agree with you. 

 

Also, I think from the Catholic/Orthodox perspective, an important aspect of the "true Church" would be one that holds to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (and not only holds to this belief, but has it, through valid priesthood ordination/apostolic succession).  Dare I say that is probably one of the most important elements from that perspective, if not the most.

 

CK,

 

I think you'll agree when you think about this.

 

I don't think belief in the Real Presence can be a sign of the "true Church". From my point of view as a Roman Catholic, I believe in the Real Presence because I believe that the Church is true, not the other way around.

 

The first sign of the true Church, is that it willingly identifies itself, as the true Church. A second sign comes from Mark 16:20:

But they going forth preached everywhere: the Lord working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed.

 

 

The signs of the "Lord working withal" are not limited to tangible miracles inexplicable to the natural order, but it seems to me like these kinds, as opposed to "moral miracles", have to be included. One of the reasons St. Peter gives in his first sermon after Pentecost for the reasonableness of faith in Jesus is founded on His miracles:

 

Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him

 

---Acts 2:22

 

I don't think it can be affirmed with certainty that wherever there are "miracles, wonders, and signs", there is the "true Church". This is because we know that some signs and wonders can come from the dark side. Our Lord said something about this, "if it were possible even to deceive the elect" or words to that effect. But I would be uncomfortable with a "true Church" that  didn't have miracles anymore, and didn't have "sons and daughters who prophesy, and old men dreaming dreams".

 

Christ did not disdain to show in this fashion that He was approved of God. His Apostles gave proofs of their own ministries in the same manner. It seems like the pattern might be intended to continue, especially when you consider that these signs occurred almost 2,000 years ago. How convincing are those to people today? If people in the past were given such assurance for their faith, why not us? At the very least we should expect with the continued promises of the Holy Ghost, what St. Peter mentioned in his first sermon regarding visions, dreams, and prophesies:

 

And it shall come to pass, in the last days, (saith the Lord,) I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. And upon my servants indeed, and upon my handmaids will I pour out in those days of my spirit, and they shall prophesy.  And I will shew wonders in the heaven above, and signs on the earth beneath: blood and fire, and vapour of smoke.

 

---Acts 2:18, 19

 

It seems like this passage can't be limited to the Apostles ministry because of the promise to "daughters" and "handmaids", and it would be further convincing if these prophecies come true. 

Edited April 22, 2014 by 3DOP

[Ran]

And although I do love the catholic church, it bothers me that people go to confession, take the communion and continue with the same sin ad nauseum,  repeating confession when they feel like taking the eucharist.

 

There remains the risk that the the "old man" of the penitent will reassert himself even after he makes the firm resolution to "sin no more and to avoid the near occasion of sin".

[3DOP]

You take on it forgets about the book of mormon which is basically a second witness that christ lived. And then we have the restoration of the priesthood through the john the baptist and 3 of the original apostles. And a stress on chasity before marriage and obeying the commandments to the best of one's ability without wavering. This should all be apart of christ's church. And a stress on love both within the church community as existed at the time of Paul and love of one's neighbor as a fellow child of god. All taught as a touchstone in how members should live.

 

I know of no church that does this better than the lds church. And although I do love the catholic church, it bothers me that people go to confession, take the communion and continue with the same sin ad nauseum,  repeating confession when they feel like taking the eucharist. I don't remember it being that way when I was a good catholic boy being taught by nuns.

 

Ad nauseam?

 

Are we supposed to fall seven times and rise up again six times? Besides that, I don't know what people who go to confession are confessing; how would you know a thing like that? They don't tell me until I get sick to stomach what their sins are.

 

I was drawn to become Catholic in part because of an assertion that a priest made in a book I read, that he never knew the most vicious habit fail to yield to regular Sacramental confession. It is completely humiliating to be repeating and confessing the same sins again and again. But a good and healthy humility will remain when the vice is replaced with virtue through the power of the Sacrament and the penitent remembers the goodness of God for His longsuffering mercy.

Edited April 22, 2014 by 3DOP

[teddyaware]

You used the phrase, "a member of the Lord's Church"... Please tell me where this is found? Is it a phrase uttered by Christ? Anyone in the NT? 

 

Your questions:

 

1) No. Obeying a man (even if a prophet!) will not sever our connection to christ. Christ is greater than our ignorance. 

 

2) Where is the line drawn. I think that the Berean Jews are our best example of where the line is drawn.  

Acts17:^{11 "}These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

 

I don't believe blinding accepting what anyone says or teaches, even if they claim it comes from God, is good practice, nor do I see this in the scriptures. 

 

3) A member in good standing? I'm not clear where this comes from. When Peter had his revelation, not everyone accepted it. Does that mean that some lost their connection to Christ as a result? No, of course not. As I said, Christ is greater than our ignorance. 

 

4) Still unclear what member in good standing means. But, of course if someone doesn't agree with Peter, that's between them and God. Peter persuades by the spirit of God, he doesn't control people.

1 During New Testament times, do you believe there were any negative consequences whatsoever for a professed believer in Christ to reject the leaders of the Church as living Apostles and Prophets?

 

2. Remember you said New Testament era believers could reject that part of the Bible wherein Peter received a revelation from God to extend the Gospel to the Gentiles and still be in full faith and fellowship with Christ (i.e. good standing). So since the entire New Testament was written by Prophets and Apostles, and not written personally by the hand of the Lord Himself, do you believe a believer in Christ can reject the entire New Testament and still find salvation in the kingdom of heaven?

 

3 Do you believe it would have been possible for a New Testament era believer in Christ to rejected every single revelation from God given to the living Apostles and Prophets and still be equally as blessed as a believer in Christ of that day who did believe and obey the revelations of God given to the Apostles and Prophets?

 

4. Do you believe God would be at all disappointed in a New Testament period believer in Christ who continued to believe in Christ but who wholly rejected the leadership and revelations of the living Apostles and Prophets of that day? 

[Yirgacheffe]

Of course! Duh. I can't remember names anymore...sometimes words...I'd get scared but what can I do? Thank you...or as they say it down under, 10-Q. (I learned that from Pahoran...its probably everywhere.)

If you type a misspelled word into google it will usually come up with the correct spelling, google always seems to know what I'm talking (typing?) about when it comes to spelling.

[Yirgacheffe]

When Peter received the revelation that the Gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles,

All the apostles were told to preach to the Gentiles at the end of Matthew.