Which Church is THE Church?

[JacksBratt]

I don't disagree, but out of dutiful respect for our Lord, we owe it to ourselves to search for truth; and in doing so we look to Scripture, the Chruch and Traditions.

God will forgive us for being wrong, God will not penalize us for trying to be as correct as we can.

Agreed.. The quest for truth is a noble one. As it is said, Iron sharpens Iron.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I don't know any Anglicans who are receptionists, either, but as for the Articles, I don't find anything in them that supports a receptionist view. You never know what The Episcopal Church is going to say from day to day, however.

It seems that Article XXIX tells a different story for those who subscribed to the 39 articles (http://www.churchsociety.org/issues_new/doctrine/39a/iss_doctrine_39a_arts25-31.asp#Article28:

XXIX. Of the Wicked which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper.
The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.

29 The wicked who partake of the Lord's supper do not eat the body of Christ
The wicked and those who lack a living faith, although they physically and visibly 'press with their teeth' (as St Augustine says) the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, nevertheless are in no way partakers of Christ. Rather, by eating and drinking the sign or sacrament of so great a thing, they bring condemnation upon themselves.

In my experience (many of my mom's family are Anglican), receptionism is a dead issue.

 

[Albion]

It seems that Article XXIX tells a different story for those who subscribed to the 39 articles

FWIW, my church subscribes to the Articles and I don't see anything in that article which supports receptionism.

 

[Jezmeyah]

Correct,not for a Protestant because they don't have the knowledge of the Apostles. There is Scripture and Tradition in the Catholic Church

The apostle Paul wrote in Rm.8:14, that the children of God are led by the Spirit of God. No mention there of exclusivity to anyone according to doctrine or theology in being led by "knowledge of the (catholic designated) Apostles".
All knowledge to be had by those who believe in Jesus Christ as Savior is within the old testament and the new testament, of which the Spirit of Truth honors.

Anything other than that is the uninspired wisdom and practices of men that are emphasized as if they had importance, but they don't. No such importance within the Jewish circles did Saul of Tarsus any good. He shed himself of all of those religious traditions to consider only Christ.

The Holy Spirit does not speak of Himself (Jn.16:13), therefore, neither would anyone who is inspired of the Holy Spirit speak on their own initiative to say, 'all knowledge belongs to the Apostles and the Catholic Church'.

But again the apostle Paul wrote in Col.2:3, "…that they (all believers - again, no denomination mentioned) may be encouraged in heart, knit together in love, and filled with the full riches of complete understanding, so that they may know the mystery of God, namely Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this so that no one will deceive you by smooth rhetoric."

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

FWIW, my church subscribes to the Articles and I don't see anything in that article which supports receptionism.

I guess it's in the interpretation maybe:

yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ

Or as they translated in modern English:

The wicked who partake of the Lord's supper do not eat the body of Christ
The wicked and those who lack a living faith, although they physically and visibly 'press with their teeth' (as St Augustine says) the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, nevertheless are in no way partakers of Christ. Rather, by eating and drinking the sign or sacrament of so great a thing, they bring condemnation upon themselves.

I would say that the authors did not intend such a meaning; but such a meaning could be construed.

 

[jeager016]

At least 33,000 denominations of Christians each believing
their denomination is the "right" one.
Which do YOU believe is the "right" denomination?
Westboro Baptists maybe?
Pentecostals that play with poisonous pit vipers?
Which is the one and only true denomination of Christianity?
Jehovah's Witnesses are so sure that denomination is correct
that they call their denomination "THE Truth".
Members are said to be "in the Truth".
Once J.W.'s forbid organ transplants and now say it's up
to a members "conscious".
Alcoholic members were shunned for attending A.A. for
recovery. Now it's a matter of conscious.
Catholics could not eat meat on Fridays and now it's o.k.
Back when I was in high school at the cafeteria we were served
fish cakes, no meat, so as not to offend Catholic kids.


And on and on and on...............................

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

At least 33,000 denominations of Christians each believing
their denomination is the "right" one.
Which do YOU believe is the "right" denomination?
Westboro Baptists maybe?
Pentecostals that play with poisonous pit vipers?
Which is the one and only true denomination of Christianity?
Jehovah's Witnesses are so sure that denomination is correct
that they call their denomination "THE Truth".
Members are said to be "in the Truth".
Once J.W.'s forbid organ transplants and now say it's up
to a members "conscious".
Alcoholic members were shunned for attending A.A. for
recovery. Now it's a matter of conscious.
Catholics could not eat meat on Fridays and now it's o.k.
Back when I was in high school at the cafeteria we were served
fish cakes, no meat, so as not to offend Catholic kids.


And on and on and on...............................

And you have never changed your mind?

 

[civilwarbuff]

At least 33,000 denominations of Christians each believing
their denomination is the "right" one.

And your evidence for this?.....other than that is what you have been told without bothering to verify it for yourself....so, opinion.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Well, if so, that would make the recipient at least partially responsible for whatever the elements are, right? It would give him the (or some) credit, to use the wording that was employed a few posts back.

Again, you are working with man-made rules to say the individual takes credit. Jesus often asked if the one he was going to heal if they had faith He could heal them. Are they to receive credit for the miracle? No anyone knows only God performs the miracle and on whom He deems to have the mercy.

 

[jeager016]

And your evidence for this?.....other than that is what you have been told without bothering to verify it for yourself....so, opinion.

33,000 denominations isn't an opinion.
According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (year 2000 version), global Christianity had 33,820 denominations with 3,445,000 congregations/churches composed of 1,888 million affiliated Christians.
http://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_different_types_of_Christianity_are_there
More on the web so google if ya like.
Does each and every member feel their particular denomination
is the "right and correct" one?
Who can tell without a poll of each member or at least a cross
section of demographics.
Westboro Baptists a notable exception.
Jehovah's Witnesses another notable exception.
J.W.'s call their denomination "the Truth".
There are True Christians in Many Denominations.
Whatever a "true" Christian is.
Many Pentecostals another exception.
"Pass me a basket of rattlesnakes so I can demonstrate my faith".

^^^ are not "opinions".
Rebuttal?

Do you feel one denomination of Christianity is the one and true
denomination?
Which one?
Islam? Which variation of Islam is the one and true path to Allah?
Which path requires murdering innocents to serve Allah?
33,000 denominations of Christians ALL reading the same book!

 

[Strong in Him]

Jehovah's Witnesses are so sure that denomination is correct
that they call their denomination "THE Truth".
Members are said to be "in the Truth".
Once J.W.'s forbid organ transplants and now say it's up
to a members "conscious".

JWs are a Christian cult not a Christian denomination.

 

[jeager016]

I was "affiliated" with the J.W. organisation due to my mother
being a Baptized member.
When I joined the city police force I was told by a committed
of elders that being a police officer might be o.k. IF I didn't carry a
gun.
I was not baptized so I could not be "punished" for being an
officer.
I was shunned however.
Nice hey?
Upholding the law, looking out for those that could not look out
for themselves, arresting child molesters, robbers, drug dealers,
rapists, was a bad thing?
Risking my life to serve others was a bad thing?
Was I bad for rescuing 20+ people from a fire?
Was I bad for doing c.p.r. on a heart attack victim?
Disabled with my 4th broken back WAS a bad thing!!!
It's o.k. though. I have many, many, community service awards,
and commendations that I am proud I earned.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Do you feel one denomination of Christianity is the one and true
denomination?
Which one?
Islam? Which variation of Islam is the one and true path to Allah?
Which path requires murdering innocents to serve Allah?
33,000 denominations of Christians ALL reading the same book!

Nope, I don't think any of them have everything right; but then I don't believe you have to have everything right. You just have to have the right things right.

 

[Albion]

I guess it's in the interpretation maybe: Or as they translated in modern English:

The wicked who partake of the Lord's supper do not eat the body of Christ
The wicked and those who lack a living faith, although they physically and visibly 'press with their teeth' (as St Augustine says) the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, nevertheless are in no way partakers of Christ. Rather, by eating and drinking the sign or sacrament of so great a thing, they bring condemnation upon themselves.

I would say that the authors did not intend such a meaning; but such a meaning could be construed.

But this says that they do not eat of the body of Christ--which I thought we had already agreed is the testimony of Scripture.

That it might NOT BE the body of Christ (because of the communicant's unworthiness) or that their Faith and worthiness is what would make it be the true body and blood of Christ in the first place...

...is a different matter.

 

[jeager016]

JWs are a Christian cult not a Christian denomination.

I've read that before. Could you please elaborate on "cult" and
what makes J.W.'s a cult.
Curious not argumentative.
Due to my childhood raised by an agnostic father and a J.W.
mother I STILL feel guilty if I take apart in Christmas.
Ain't that awful? It IS awful in fact.
A story.
Mom worked at a place that made Genie garage door openers.
She and her brothers were J.W.'s.
Her brother asked her to "get" him a garage opener.
That meant STEAL it.
Not easy but the employees could slip one over the fence to be
"retrieved" at night.
So mother "got" one for the J.W. brother.
Oh, well. We are all human.

 

[jeager016]

Nope, I don't think any of them have everything right; but then I don't believe you have to have everything right. You just have to have the right things right.

That makes considerable sense to me.
Thanks.
But what are the right things to get right?

 

[Albion]

Does each and every member feel their particular denomination
is the "right and correct" one?
Who can tell without a poll of each member or at least a cross
section of demographics.
Westboro Baptists a notable exception.
Jehovah's Witnesses another notable exception.
J.W.'s call their denomination "the Truth".

This is really irrelevant, however. Each denomination may think it's right (but not that it's THE Church, which is what the thread asked), but although there are thousands of such churches, there may indeed still be one among them that actually is right. Isn't that so?

 

[civilwarbuff]

@jeager016
you might want to change scr....g to milder word......

 

[Albion]

Again, you are working with man-made rules to say the individual takes credit.

No, I absolutely am not, but I will say this...

I thought at the time that your point (in post 185) wasn't exactly receptionism. I tried to allow for that in my reply but your later posts did seem to be backing up the receptionism POV. I could also be wrong about that. But I have never heard of a POV that isn't actually receptionism but yet says that the change from simple bread and wine is accomplished more or less as the older churches think is the case BUT ONLY WHEN the elements hit the lips of the communicant.

 

[civilwarbuff]

That makes considerable sense to me.
Thanks.
But what are the right things to get right?

I think this puts a person on the right path:
http://www.gotquestions.org/way-of-salvation.html
Then hold fast to the word of God and the Word.....