One true church-ism

[xpower]

You know, I was on another forum and visited a thread that had primarily roman catholic and eastern orthodox people in it. Then somebody claimed that there church was the "one true church" And let me tell you. That thread exploded into a war, a war of insults, where some people said some very VERY not nice things about some other people. You think they were trying to kill each other with words.

Tell me, why do some christians need there church to be the "one true church"?

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

People have it in their heads that the way they see, sense, or experience things is the only correct way. It seems so obvious to them that they reason anyone who sees, senses, or experiences things in a different way must be wrong. How can they both be right if they're saying different things?

Yet the human mind isn't capable of seeing the whole picture.

I think of the old story about the group of blind men who met an elephant. Each touched a different part.

One touched its tusk. "The elephant is like a spear."
One touched its tail. "The elephant is like a rope."
One touched its leg. "The elephant is like a tree."
One touched its side. "The elephant is like a wall."
One touched its ear. "The elephant is like a fan."
One touched its trunk. "The elephant is like a water spout."

And they all came away arguing about what the elephant was really like. Each man believed that he KNEW. He was there. He FELT it. How could anybody disagree? And that's how, if the elephant were the body of Christ, it would end up with spearists and ropists and treeists, etc., all convinced they've met the true elephant and the others are wrong. Nobody really knows what the whole elephant is like. They're all saying different things, but they are all correct in their limited way.

 

[tdidymas]

You know, I was on another forum and visited a thread that had primarily roman catholic and eastern orthodox people in it. Then somebody claimed that there church was the "one true church" And let me tell you. That thread exploded into a war, a war of insults, where some people said some very VERY not nice things about some other people. You think they were trying to kill each other with words.

Tell me, why do some christians need there church to be the "one true church"?

1 John 4:19 "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar..."

I suspect that if you quoted this in the middle of such debate, some would respond that the other party "is no brother of mine" which is merely an ungodly excuse to hate.

The fact is, religious people need validation from others, because they don't really believe in the Christ Who is able to save them. What keeps them in bondage is that they are told by their leaders that their church is the only one acceptable to God (the "one true church"), but the fact is, that God doesn't accept any of them. God only accepts individual believers in Christ, who exhibit their faith by the love they express for all believers everywhere, and this is the "one true" universal church. The difference is that the true church is made up of true believers everywhere, and the "churches" which are called that by religious people are made up of both true and false believers.

Therefore, I say that any time we come across a debate like the one you described, we should quote 1 John 4:19-21 in full force. Then the true and false believers will become evident, as the true believers will immediately repent.
TD

 

[Tolworth John]

Jesus said 'I Am The Way, The Truth and The Life, no one comes to the Father but by me.

If Jesus is the only way, then my church is the only way.

The first statement is true, but most churches differ on minor issues.

What the bible teaches is to follow Jesus not his disciples, followers etc.

 

[SnowyMacie]

Well, according to strict Catholic teachings (I'm fairly sure that's the same for Orthodoxy), the Roman Catholic Church IS the one-true Church that Christ established. When it comes to Catholics, I tend to have a bit more grace about them believing that they are the only true church.

 

[Silmarien]

Mmm, the Eastern Orthodox have some pretty serious objections to a lot of the theological developments within Western Christianity, so I think it's reasonable that they would claim that theirs is true Christianity and the West went off the rails. (Not sure how they would account for the Oriental Orthodox, though.)

I think for both groups, though, between the focus on tradition and the memory of the bloody conflicts with the major heresies (I'm thinking of the Vandals and their Arianism), a serious protectiveness towards the correctness of their doctrines is understandable.

 

[Anto9us]

As I understand history -- one Roman Catholic Bishop split off from a plurality of Orthodox Bishops when the "college of Bishops" which had been the norm for a millennium -- was challenged by the one Bishop of Rome who wanted to be THE BIG CHEESE

 

[Erik Nelson]

Romans 12:5 ?

so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.

 

[W2L]

You know, I was on another forum and visited a thread that had primarily roman catholic and eastern orthodox people in it. Then somebody claimed that there church was the "one true church" And let me tell you. That thread exploded into a war, a war of insults, where some people said some very VERY not nice things about some other people. You think they were trying to kill each other with words.

Tell me, why do some christians need there church to be the "one true church"?

Their faith is shaken whenever their Church doctrine is threatened. I dont have a Church but my faith is still shaken at times, so i know the feeling. Perhaps having our faith shaken is a good thing.

Hebrews 12:26 At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.”[e] 27 The words “once more” indicate the removing of what can be shaken—that is, created things—so that what cannot be shaken may remain.

28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, 29 for our “God is a consuming fire.”[f]

 

[hedrick]

This seems to go back very early in Church history, before Constantine certainly. Christians came to define the Church in terms of doctrinal conformity. Very odd that Christianity should define itself that way when Jesus was about motivations and how we treated others.

 

[Erik Nelson]

This seems to go back very early in Church history, before Constantine certainly. Christians came to define the Church in terms of doctrinal conformity. Very odd that Christianity should define itself that way when Jesus was about motivations and how we treated others.

Isn't that a core doctrine, to which all Christians really ought to conform ?

 

[hedrick]

Isn't that a core doctrine, to which all Christians really ought to conform ?

What? That we're supposed to define the church by doctrinal conformity? It's certainly not the way mainline churches do things. The PCUSA asks new members if they accept Christ as Lord and Savior.

Paul counseled against it. He tried to get people who would eat idol meat to coexist with those who wouldn't, those who speak in tongues to coexist with those that don't. Despite his strong words on the circumcision issue, he didn't seem to recommend excluding the circumcision party from the Church, concluding Galatians by saying circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, what matters is the new life in Christ.

 

[hedrick]

I think for both groups, though, between the focus on tradition and the memory of the bloody conflicts with the major heresies (I'm thinking of the Vandals and their Arianism), a serious protectiveness towards the correctness of their doctrines is understandable.

Or perhaps it should cause them to think more carefully about the definition of heresy and what things are essential to being a Christian. Becoming protective may be a natural human reaction, but I'm not sure it's the Christian one.

 

[Erik Nelson]

What? That we're supposed to define the church by doctrinal conformity? It's certainly not the way mainline churches do things. The PCUSA asks new members if they accept Christ as Lord and Savior.

Paul counseled against it. He tried to get people who would eat idol meat to coexist with those who wouldn't, those who speak in tongues to coexist with those that don't. Despite his strong words on the circumcision issue, he didn't seem to recommend excluding the circumcision party from the Church, concluding Galatians by saying circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, what matters is the new life in Christ.

Well, yes, to the best of my current understanding, St. Paul and the Apostolic Fathers tried to promote "one body" of Christ, by advocating "basic core doctrinal conformity" and otherwise "social communal unity" and forgiveness. That sounds like what you're saying, also, yes ?

 

[hedrick]

Well, yes, to the best of my current understanding, St. Paul and the Apostolic Fathers tried to promote "one body" of Christ, by advocating "basic core doctrinal conformity" and otherwise "social communal unity" and forgiveness. That sounds like what you're saying, also, yes ?

Maybe. The problem is what "core doctrinal conformity" means. Jesus certainly considered "Hear oh Israel, the Lord our God is one" to be essential. You could probably come up with a couple of other things that would reasonably be considered doctrinal. Paul considered Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection to be essential, though he said nothing about the empty tomb.

But over time disagreements occurred over progressively more complex ways of defining the faith. I understand why the disagreements occurred. The questions they were dealing with were important ones, which I find interesting myself. But they were also subjects that were hard enough to talk about that differing ways of speaking were inevitable. Yet failure to accept specific official answers became unacceptable.

However we also need to face the fact that the key breaks in Church unity were political. Both the division between East and West and the Protestant Reformation were consequences of the way the Popes defended their power. There were serious theological issues as well. But I don't think they would have resulted in splits if they hadn't been entwined in church politics.

The Radical Reformation was different because it was more radical. It took on the whole issue of the existence of a monolithic Church with the State enforcing its opinions. There were lots of things to criticize about the movement. It was became a peasants' revolt, and originally its theology was often muddled. I don't think the goal of producing a perfect church was realistic. But I'm still sympathetic with the basic perception.