Elements Of The True Church?

[mfbukowski]

In essence, if truth is like ice cream (it's tastes good to me!), then one cannot claim it's good for everyone. 

I have specifically disavowed that claim early on.

 

Remember Mudcat?  "We all do the best we can".  I agreed with him.  It is YOU who want all to think YOUR view is good for everyone, not me.

 

All we can KNOW is what Alma 32 says.  If others say it is not "sweet" then there is nothing I can do about it.  I only know what I know

Edited April 28, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Gervin]

Thanks for a reply, and I get what he is saying I think.

 

OK so there's a lot of diversity in the EV community.  But for me I don't think that really answers the question of authority.

 

WHY WOULD he be welcome in your church??  Because he accepts the same concept of "authority" as you do.  He does not believe Genesis 1 is literal, etc.

He accepts your view as the "correct" view and therefore he would be welcome!

 

All I see here is a kind of "It could be this, it could be that" approach.  Yet the bottom line is that somehow one still has to choose a church.

 

One still has to accept position "A" and exclude others, thereby giving "authority" to position A

 

Am I really expected to believe that that process does not involve asking God "which church is true"?  And yet we hear over and again how Evangelicals do not do that or think it is wrong.

 

I'm not buying it. 

 

You feel you know you are saved because God speaks to you.  You pray about finding the right wife, going to the right school, heck, probably buying the right car, and feel you get answers.   I am positive you DO get answers about all these things and more.

 

So God can tell you who to marry, but not which church to join??  That seems contradictory!  Why would you pray to God about ANYTHING if you didn't think he could and would answer?

 

You already believe God can answer prayers - and the decision to act on that belief is a religious decision in itself.  The very assumption that God can answer ANY prayer MUST HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED IN YOUR LIFE or you would not believe it.  It would be a totally foreign concept.

 

It just makes no sense to me that you believe that God would not guide you to a church which had the "correct authority" ie: the same concept of what is true and what is not as you do.  I am convinced you do not really believe that at all.

 

And if you don't, you are very close to Moroni 10:4-5 which says that God can tell you which church is true, and indeed the truth of "all things".

 

Keller has a foundational belief in a crucified and resurrected Christ. This foundational belief by someone makes them a part of the body of Christ.  The part is instructed to seek fellowship with other parts who are one in the bond of love.

 

The "early" parts were discovering as they went along (doing the best they could, right?) but there are traits of Jewish and other cultures influencing some early church organizational characteristics.  Much of the instruction from Paul to the early church was to stay focused on Christ and on each other's needs.  Under a new-found faith, led by the Spirit and free of Jewish law or Roman Syncretism, the early church probably felt liberated.  The early church grew too fast for church structure to keep apace. Perhaps that allowed a baptism of the Spirit into a great many different cultures (think Corinth) before church organization could be sorted out. There were, for sure, essential elements in the church, but at the root they were households worshiping together, sharing meals, singing songs and living life, but with a community of like-minded.

 

For me, if I believe Christ's claim that He is the Truth, then I'm going to be suspicious of other "truth" claims - be they by a person, a church, a denomination, religion, tenet, or belief.  He demands that of me.  A one true church (and all the correct things that go with it) doesn't resonate with me as what the early church looked like or was about - or looks like or is about today.

[MiserereNobis]

He might have heard the phrase 'cowboy up' and put humble up in its place. People who like pope francis for what he is now saying should be loving lds leaders for what they have been saying for decades now.

 

With all due respect, I think you are taking a rather superficial view of the Catholic Church and Her Popes.  You can go back through Catholic history and see how many Popes have preached on humility, "living within means" (the Church of Rome has never been in debt), and the other points you mentioned.

 

If we only focus on what the media focuses on, we miss alot...

[danielwoods]

Oh my gosh.

See? There it is.  THAT is precisely where the misunderstanding is.

FAITH IS NOT BASED ON EVIDENCE. 

This is exactly where we started- it is a pointless conversation.  No progress whatsoever has been made.

 

Notice, that I gave two views of faith. You (below) claim that I am the one who wants all to think my view is good for everyone. Yet, here you are telling me that there is no other view of faith, only yours. 

 

Fact is that Jesus demonstrated that faith was based on evidence, numerous times. Even in your quote it is the "evidence" of things not seen. If Christianity is anything, it is an evidence driven world view. 

 

 

I have specifically disavowed that claim early on.

 

Remember Mudcat?  "We all do the best we can".  I agreed with him.  It is YOU who want all to think YOUR view is good for everyone, not me.

 

All we can KNOW is what Alma 32 says.  If others say it is not "sweet" then there is nothing I can do about it.  I only know what I know

 

You are correct. I view truth more similar to medicine that will heal all who are willing to try it. 

 

Unlike the ice cream view of truth where something that tastes good for me, may not be for others.  

[mfbukowski]

Notice, that I gave two views of faith. You (below) claim that I am the one who wants all to think my view is good for everyone. Yet, here you are telling me that there is no other view of faith, only yours. 

 

Fact is that Jesus demonstrated that faith was based on evidence, numerous times. Even in your quote it is the "evidence" of things not seen. If Christianity is anything, it is an evidence driven world view. 

 

 

 

You are correct. I view truth more similar to medicine that will heal all who are willing to try it. 

 

Unlike the ice cream view of truth where something that tastes good for me, may not be for others.  

Poor analogy if you listen to tv commercials for medicines with their side effects.

 

So Republican or Democrat?

[MiserereNobis]

Poor analogy if you listen to tv commercials for medicines with their side effects.

I don't have TV, so I don't see much, but the other day I saw a pharmaceutical ad for vet meds. The modern world progresses, indeed, with money pushing the pedal, eh?

[mfbukowski]

For me, if I believe Christ's claim that He is the Truth, then I'm going to be suspicious of other "truth" claims - be they by a person, a church, a denomination, religion, tenet, or belief.  He demands that of me.  A one true church (and all the correct things that go with it) doesn't resonate with me as what the early church looked like or was about - or looks like or is about today.

Well I was with you til that last part that I bolded.

 

So I read that to mean that "there is no one true church, except for what the early church looked like or was about- or is THE WAY MINE LOOKS TODAY."

 

Otherwise it means that your church is just one among many that may (by your interpretation) LOOK like the early church, and clearly it doesn't mean that.

[mfbukowski]

I don't have TV, so I don't see much, but the other day I saw a pharmaceutical ad for vet meds. The modern world progresses, indeed, with money pushing the pedal, eh?

Oh yeah!

 

They are usually ads for something seemingly innocuous where the side effects include stroke and your nose falling off and sudden death.

 

Just what I needed to cure a hangnail!

[3DOP]

Oh yeah!

 

They are usually ads for something seemingly innocuous where the side effects include stroke and your nose falling off and sudden death.

 

Just what I needed to cure a hangnail!

 

You are singing my song now bukowski.

 

So you're depressed? Take this and you'll be happy even though you have a good chance of partaking in the joys of diarrhea, nose bleeds, headaches, raw lesions, higher risk of heart failure, bone softening, and excessive perspiring with extraordinary B.O. Must be good stuff! In almost every case, I would rather have the original problem than the possible and often probable side effects that these TV ads promote!

[mfbukowski]

You are singing my song now bukowski.

 

So you're depressed? Take this and you'll be happy even though you have a good chance of partaking in the joys of diarrhea, nose bleeds, headaches, raw lesions, higher risk of heart failure, bone softening, and excessive perspiring with extraordinary B.O. Must be good stuff! In almost every case, I would rather have the original problem than the possible and often probable side effects that these TV ads promote!

I know!

 

The funny part is that they are actually trying to sell the medication- the sad part is that the poor folks who need it must be absolutely desperate to take all those risks to cure their condition.

[Calm]

I know!

 

The funny part is that they are actually trying to sell the medication- the sad part is that the poor folks who need it must be absolutely desperate to take all those risks to cure their condition.

What ticks me off is when they trivialize the condition so that it can be thought to affect so many more people than those who have it seriously enough to take the meds with the side effects so that people will ask their doctor if by chance they have that problem because then it seems like those who take it are just hypochondriacs…saw this with my own disorder Restless Legs Syndrome which the commercials made it seemed like it was needing to squirm a bit when trying to relax rather than jumping out of bed due to feel like your body is about to snap in two if it doesn't move or not being able to be touched by anyone anywhere because it sets off the feeling like one is covered in crawling bugs or needles being shoved into one and then electrocuted with them.  There were those who thought it was just a created disorder by the drug companies when it has been documented to exist for 500 year or so, IIRC. 

 

/rant

[why me]

With all due respect, I think you are taking a rather superficial view of the Catholic Church and Her Popes.  You can go back through Catholic history and see how many Popes have preached on humility, "living within means" (the Church of Rome has never been in debt), and the other points you mentioned.

 

If we only focus on what the media focuses on, we miss alot...

I am referring to the role of the media in all this. It is good to get on the good side of the media at times and certainly pope francis has done this. He knows how to play up to the media and get really good press. Pope benedict was not so lucky. The current pope has more or less stayed away from the sin angle. Instead, putting a different conversation in a more media friendly way. In the age of social media, words become very important. But the church is still the same as it was in benedicts time. But the message is different.

[danielwoods]

Poor analogy if you listen to tv commercials for medicines with their side effects.

 

So Republican or Democrat?

 

Sorry not finding a relevant response. 

[Gervin]

Well I was with you til that last part that I bolded.

 

So I read that to mean that "there is no one true church, except for what the early church looked like or was about- or is THE WAY MINE LOOKS TODAY."

 

Otherwise it means that your church is just one among many that may (by your interpretation) LOOK like the early church, and clearly it doesn't mean that.

 

Where does the whole "one true church" thing come from? Is it a Mormon construct?  There are some basic elements that I think our church shares with the early church, but I make no special claims about, or pleadings for, my church.  

[Stone holm]

Where does the whole "one true church" thing come from? Is it a Mormon construct?  There are some basic elements that I think our church shares with the early church, but I make no special claims about, or pleadings for, my church.  

 

I suspect it comes from the notion that there is only one way to salvation, one truth, one Church, one Savior, and one God.  If you believe that Christ established His Church, then you tend to want to be in that Church as opposed to some other church.

[thatjimguy]

Ah, the old refrain rears its most righteous and benevolent head.  This is where we should also ask of those so moved with charity toward their fellow man:  have you sold all you have and given it all to the poor in order to follow  Him?  If not all, how about half of what you have?  Okay, not half, how about 25% of all you earn; is it given to the poor?  And what organization do you give it to when assisting the poor?  Or maybe you should sell all you have and then find some poor soul on the street and give it away?  Have you done any of these things?  If not, it seems a bit of removing the beam from one's own eye before discussing the possible mote in another's.

 

Additionally, should we outlaw all private investing by any organization?  If not all organizations, how about all religious organizations; that's it, we declare all forms of investing to be illegal and demand that all funds should be given promptly to the poor.  Would that achieve your understanding of scripture?  

 

Then if we did this, please explain how it helps the poor?  What would it do to help these individuals?  What would be the impact on society? Would poverty cease to exist?  

 

Let me be clear, I am not a blind supporter of the Church of Jesus Christ.  I am a natural skeptic of all things; particularly the feigned righteousness of my fellow man.  If we each did all that the Church teaches us to do in a faithful manner, how would we not be charitable towards all?  

 

If anyone reads the New Testament it is absolutely clear that there was an organization instituted to guide the saints. We do not have a record of all that Christ said, but what we do have is most focused on what the individual should do to obtain salvation. If we are going to begin judging others, including the Church, then let us remember that we will be judged by the same standard.  To judge from ignorance seldom leads to wise choices or actions. 

 

 

This is twice over two threads where you have said this, and as much as I would like to side with you, the idea to attack anyone that has questions about how the church spends the money is silly. Any sane person would ask this.

 

I mean, if it does show that we spend only .05% or whatever on the poor and so much on other things, doesn't that deserve a little skepticism? Are you truly surprised that people, even within the church, are concerned about it? How can you say you are a skeptic "in all things" when you give this a pass? Did you ever question this at one time and got past it?

 

I tithe willingly (I do not "Pay" tithing, I give it), but yet I really wish there was more light on this subject. Would it really kill anyone to say a little more about it? We can say that people will attack us...but they do that anyway! So why not? A test of my faith? I got enough tests thank you. The temporal part of me just wants to know what the heck or plan is. What rainy day are we saving up for?  

[Gervin]

I suspect it comes from the notion that there is only one way to salvation, one truth, one Church, one Savior, and one God.  If you believe that Christ established His Church, then you tend to want to be in that Church as opposed to some other church.

The Bible is clear that there is one God, a Savior, his claim of Truth, and his promise of salvation.  I don't think it's clear that there is one true church.  There is a Church universal but I don't see how a one true church concept fits into this hierarchy.

[MiserereNobis]

The Bible is clear that there is one God, a Savior, his claim of Truth, and his promise of salvation.  I don't think it's clear that there is one true church.  There is a Church universal but I don't see how a one true church concept fits into this hierarchy.

 

That's because you're basing everything off of the Bible only.  The Bible was not around for the early Church.  The Apostles, and their successors the bishops (indulge me, LDS friends) were.  The NT is the account of the Church and Her heirarchy.  If you cut the Bible away from the Church and Her appointed heirarchy, you are left with confusion and partial views.

 

I'm always slightly mystified that evangelicals put so so so much stock into the Bible but then tend to discount the 300 years that preceded its compilation, the people who canonized it (Catholic bishops and the Pope), and the purpose for which it was put together.

 

It also intrigues me, probably obviously so from my posts, how Mormons and Catholics have a very similar view of the role of scripture and the role of Church authorities to interpret scripture for us.  We obviously disagree on who the authority is and what the interpretation is, but we have the same basic principle: the scriptures must be understood in context of other things ordained by God, such as a heirarchy of a Church.

[Stone holm]

That's because you're basing everything off of the Bible only.  The Bible was not around for the early Church.  The Apostles, and their successors the bishops (indulge me, LDS friends) were.  The NT is the account of the Church and Her heirarchy.  If you cut the Bible away from the Church and Her appointed heirarchy, you are left with confusion and partial views.

 

I'm always slightly mystified that evangelicals put so so so much stock into the Bible but then tend to discount the 300 years that preceded its compilation, the people who canonized it (Catholic bishops and the Pope), and the purpose for which it was put together.

 

It also intrigues me, probably obviously so from my posts, how Mormons and Catholics have a very similar view of the role of scripture and the role of Church authorities to interpret scripture for us.  We obviously disagree on who the authority is and what the interpretation is, but we have the same basic principle: the scriptures must be understood in context of other things ordained by God, such as a heirarchy of a Church.

LeGrand Richards used to quote a Catholic scholar as saying its either the Catholics or us. Something the Orthodox might dispute.

[3DOP]

LeGrand Richards used to quote a Catholic scholar as saying its either the Catholics or us. Something the Orthodox might dispute.

 

Nah...Orthodox? Catholic? There's more difference between a Republican and Democrat. And we know they are the same.

[mfbukowski]

Where does the whole "one true church" thing come from? Is it a Mormon construct?  There are some basic elements that I think our church shares with the early church, but I make no special claims about, or pleadings for, my church.  

Well there are these folks known as Catholics, which you folks split off from, so it is probably self defense.

 

It would be hard to believe that Luther and Calvin didn't think that they were right and the Catholics wrong. 

[mfbukowski]

That's because you're basing everything off of the Bible only.  The Bible was not around for the early Church.  The Apostles, and their successors the bishops (indulge me, LDS friends) were.  The NT is the account of the Church and Her heirarchy.  If you cut the Bible away from the Church and Her appointed heirarchy, you are left with confusion and partial views.

 

I'm always slightly mystified that evangelicals put so so so much stock into the Bible but then tend to discount the 300 years that preceded its compilation, the people who canonized it (Catholic bishops and the Pope), and the purpose for which it was put together.

 

It also intrigues me, probably obviously so from my posts, how Mormons and Catholics have a very similar view of the role of scripture and the role of Church authorities to interpret scripture for us.  We obviously disagree on who the authority is and what the interpretation is, but we have the same basic principle: the scriptures must be understood in context of other things ordained by God, such as a heirarchy of a Church.

I just cannot even understand what it would be like to think that my church was not in some way a better model.

 

And I am positive they feel the same, otherwise everyone would be LDS or Catholic. It makes no sense to be critical of our churches while thinking everyone has equal authority.

Edited April 30, 2014 by mfbukowski

[danielwoods]

That's because you're basing everything off of the Bible only.  The Bible was not around for the early Church.  The Apostles, and their successors the bishops (indulge me, LDS friends) were.  The NT is the account of the Church and Her heirarchy.  If you cut the Bible away from the Church and Her appointed heirarchy, you are left with confusion and partial views.

 

I'm always slightly mystified that evangelicals put so so so much stock into the Bible but then tend to discount the 300 years that preceded its compilation, the people who canonized it (Catholic bishops and the Pope), and the purpose for which it was put together.

 

It also intrigues me, probably obviously so from my posts, how Mormons and Catholics have a very similar view of the role of scripture and the role of Church authorities to interpret scripture for us.  We obviously disagree on who the authority is and what the interpretation is, but we have the same basic principle: the scriptures must be understood in context of other things ordained by God, such as a heirarchy of a Church.

 

Problem is Jesus never claimed to establish an organization. The NT was written in the 1st century, with the Book of Luke and Acts completed before AD 70. And In that time there was no monolithic organization one had to have membership in in order to be saved. 

 

If your point was correct, then it would be the Orthodox church that is the true church. Since even catholics don't agree with that, then they only prove the point there is no "true church organization."

[Gervin]

we have the same basic principle: the scriptures must be understood in context of other things ordained by God, such as a heirarchy of a Church.

Is this principle found in the Bible or, again, is this a man-made construct?

[Gervin]

I just cannot even understand what it would be like to think that my church was not in some way a better model.

 

And I am positive they feel the same, otherwise everyone would be LDS or Catholic. It makes no sense to be critical of our churches while thinking everyone has equal authority.

I don't think everyone has equal authority and I don't think I've been critical of other churches.  Just to clarify that this wasn't directed to me.

 

 

Well there are these folks known as Catholics, which you folks split off from, so it is probably self defense.

 

It would be hard to believe that Luther and Calvin didn't think that they were right and the Catholics wrong. 

I'd be curious to see any writings  of Luther or Calvin that espouse a one true church. I don't think there are any.