[net.religion] Supposed claims to be the ONE TRUE CHURCH

west@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Steve Westfall) (02/16/85)

Bill Klein (wmk@ptsfa.UUCP) has written several articles asserting
that the major Christian groups are all exclusive and condemn all
of the other groups to hell.  

For example, in article <469@ptsfa.UUCP> Bill writes:

>To the best of my knowledge the Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist
>Presbyterian and a variety of other "churches" ALL state in their
>official doctrine that they are the ONE TRUE CHURCH. (They either
>excommunicate or damn each other.) I appreciate that many are moving
>toward reconciliation but what are they move from?

In a reply to Charley Wingate (mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP), Bill makes such
an assertion about the Episcopal Church in article <474@ptsfa.UUCP>:

>The following reflects the Official doctrine of the Episcopal Church in
>America. Although many Episcopalians like to ignore the Articles of
>Religion many (most?) diocess still require a candidate to affirm them
>before being ordained.

[Now Bill quotes from the Articles of Religion of the Episcopal Church:]

>XIX. Of the Church
>The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the
>pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according
>to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite 
>to the same.
>As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the
>Church of Rome hath errred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies,
>but also in matters of Faith.

>XXXVI. Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers
>The Book of Consecration of Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons, 
>as set forth by the General Convention of this Church in 1792, doth contain
>all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering; neither hath it any
>thing that, of itself, is superstitious and ungodly. And, therefore,
>whoever are consecrated or ordered according to said Form,
>we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated
>and ordered.

[Bill then continues on with the following *INCREDIBLY IGNORANT*
interpretation of these articles:]

>As mine was the original quotation, let me say that although many
>denominations in practice accept each other, their doctrine either
>has in the past, or still states that the others are in "ERROR".
>The Episcopalians state that Rome and the Orthodox are in error and
>that the protestants who have no Priests and Bishops are "invalid".
>This doesn't mean that most current diocess
>and parrishes deny communion to those baptised in other denominations;
>it only means that their theory denies the other denominations.

If this were not such an *INCREDIBLY IGNORANT* interpretation of
what those two Articles actually say, it would be funny.  Is Bill
so unaware of what issues were debated at the time of the Reformation
that he cannot see that these articles have nothing to do with his
interpretation?  It helps if you read a document in light of what
was happening at the general time of its composition!  The Thirty Nine
Articles of the Episcopal Church in America are almost identical with
the Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England, from which they
were derived, and the latter are a product of the English Reformation.

When Article XIX says that "as the churches of Jerusalem, etc. etc.
have erred, so also has the church of Rome erred," it is making a
denial of the claim that the church of Rome is the only true church
and that it is infallible.  It is saying that all churches, including
the church of Rome, are fallible.  This has *NOTHING* to do with Bill's
interpretation that all churches except the Episcopal [Anglican] are
wrong and that the Episcopal is right.  To assert the latter is
simply sheer ignorance of history and hermeneutics.  Also, Bill
might be interested to note that it has long been the policy in the
Anglican communion that priests from the Roman or Orthodox communities
who wish to join the Anglican church and minister there do NOT have
to be reordained.  Their original ordination carries over and is
recognized as valid by Anglican churches, and this is a consequence
of the fact that the Anglican churches recognize the legitimacy of
the Roman and Orthodox episcopacy.

As to Bill's interpretation that Article XXXVI says that the
protestants who have no priests and bishops are "invalid", you
will note that the article doesn't even use the word "invalid",
but Bill has implied that it does by enclosing the word in
quotation marks.  The article says nothing about the legitimacy
or illegitimacy of Protestant ministers in general or about Protestant
religion in general.  What it does say is that the way that bishops,
priests, and deacons are consecrated or ordained in the Episcopal
Church is sound, proper and lawful.  It does not logically follow,
however, as Bill seems to think, that all non-Episcopal bishops,
ministers, or whatever are "invalidly" ordained.

Article XXXVI of the Episcopal Church's articles is somewhat revised
from the original article in the Church of England's prayer book.
The point of the original article is that Anglican priests are validly
ordained, in spite of what the Roman church may say (i.e., in
the aftermath of the Reformation), and the American revision of
it, while removing references to parliament and king in the
aftermath of the American revolution, is maintaining the same thing,
that American Episcopal priests are validly ordained, in spite of
anything that Rome, or for that matter, King George and the English
parliament, might say.  It is not the purpose of the article to
make any statement about ministers in other churches, and to
interpret it in that way is simply to wrench it from its historical
context.

I am rather offended that Bill has presumed to say that his
ill-informed interpretation of a document that he obviously knows
nothing about is "the official doctrine of the Episcopal Church" (from
his summary header).  I suggest that he try reading a little history.
The fact is that in spite of various disagreements between Anglicans
and other branches of Christianity, historically Anglicanism has
never claimed to be the ONE TRUE CHURCH, and that is also true of
most of the other churches mentioned by Bill.


-- 
Steve Westfall			     uucp:  ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!west
Staff Analyst			   bitnet:  staff.westfall%chip@UChicago.bitnet
U. of Chicago Computation Center

larryg@teklds.UUCP (Larry Gardner) (02/21/85)

There is in fact ONE TRUE CHURCH, and it is the body of Jesus.  Not a
building, but those who actually know Jesus and are His followers.

The Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses,(with Catholics it is 
a different degree)  All teach that you must be one of their group to
be saved.  If you look into their doctrine they do indeed teach that
their church is the only right one.

karen

bandy@mit-eddie.UUCP (++Andrew Scott Beals) (02/23/85)

Mme Karen alias LarryG:

I fear that you are incorrect. The One True Church is Murphy Himself.

Also, don't you remember saying a couple-few weeks ago that one shouldn't
put down other people's beliefs? SHAME ON YOU YOU CLOSE-MINDED REACTIONARY
VOODO MONGER! I hope that you waste your life worshipping nothing but
a book of fairy-tales only to die and cease to exist - no fun for you
now and no fun for you when you die because there isn't anything after
you die. Heh heh heh.

"There is no god and Murphy is her prophet!" [me, a year or so ago]
	andy beals
	ihnp4!mit-eddie!bandy

ps. (sorry to all you bob-ites, but clearly Murphy is the most powerful
    force in the world today)

geb@cadre.UUCP (02/23/85)

In article <346@teklds.UUCP> larryg@teklds.UUCP (Karen Clark) writes:
>
>There is in fact ONE TRUE CHURCH, and it is the body of Jesus.  Not a
>building, but those who actually know Jesus and are His followers.
>
>The Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses,(with Catholics it is 
>a different degree)  All teach that you must be one of their group to
>be saved.  If you look into their doctrine they do indeed teach that
>their church is the only right one.
>
>karen

Haven't you been reading the postings here?  The Mormons do believe
their church is the true one, just like you do, but they believe
that almost EVERYONE will be saved, while you and yours condemn
everyone who isn't "born again" (almost everyone who ever lived on
this earth) to roast in torment forever.  How can you put a smiling
face on such an evil belief?  I agree with Joseph Smith, the Mormon
prophet, that if your God is like that, he would rather go to the hell
that the "Christians" propose for the Mormons.  Then, he said,
"We'll turn the devil out, and make a heaven of it."

sm@cadre.UUCP (02/23/85)

In article <346@teklds.UUCP> larryg@teklds.UUCP (Karen Clark) writes:
>The Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses,(with Catholics it is 
>a different degree)  All teach that you must be one of their group to
>be saved.  If you look into their doctrine they do indeed teach that
>their church is the only right one.
>
>karen

I don't know about Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses but you are certainly
misinformed about Roman Catholicism. According to Catholic teaching,
salvation was won for all people by Jesus Christ who sacrificed his life
for this. Of course, there weren't any Catholics back then so it would
be ridiculous to assume He did it only for Catholics.

The sad fact is, however, that very few people (especially Catholics)
have any real knowledge of the tenets of their faith. (This ignorance
extends well up into the hierarchy, and is not limited to the laity).
This ignorance generates nearly 30% of all the discussions in these
newsgroups, many of which are based on ungrounded opinions rather than
established teaching. What a pity.

Sean McLinden

gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (02/24/85)

Even though I consider myself to be a Christian, I do not presume that my
beliefs are the only ones to be had, because there may be many paths to sal-
vation which I am unaware of.  I find that Christianity works for me, and if I
see someone leading the kind of life I lead (or want to lead) who is not a
Christian, who am I to say anything about their salvation, not being God, and
not knowing about his plan for those who do not follow Him?  Their religion is
working for them.

The Church of Jesus Christ is *MY* ONE TRUE CHURCH.
-- 
			... hey, we've gotta get out of this place,
    			    there's got to be something better than this ...

Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo

tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (02/24/85)

 From larryg@teklds.UUCP (Karen Clark) Thu Feb 21 14:50:54 1985

> The Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses,(with Catholics it is 
> a different degree)  All teach that you must be one of their group to
> be saved.  If you look into their doctrine they do indeed teach that
> their church is the only right one.

Karen, would you mind shutting up on things you don't know anything about?
I'm getting very sick of your convenient misrepresentations of others'
religions.  Of the three religions you mention, you are only correct about
the Jehovah's Witnesses.  Mormons believe that virtually everyone is going
to Heaven, Mormon or not.  Catholics accept Protestant churches as valid
parts of the True Church (although the Protestant churches rarely return the
favor), and they think Protestants are gtoing to Heaven.  In fact, many
Catholics think even virtuous non-Christians are going to Heaven.

What is wrong with you, girl?  Do you have a graduate degree in
wrongheadedness, or what?  Who told you all these lies?
-=-
Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center
ARPA:	Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K	uucp:	seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim
CompuServe:	74176,1360	audio:	shout "Hey, Tim!"

"Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are
but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains."
Liber AL, II:9.

david@daisy.UUCP (David Schachter) (02/24/85)

No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.

[Generic disclaimer] {N.F.Q.}

amerige@sbcs.UUCP (Stephen Amerige) (02/26/85)

>>There is in fact ONE TRUE CHURCH, and it is the body of Jesus.  Not a
>>building, but those who actually know Jesus and are His followers.
>>
>>The Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses,(with Catholics it is 
>>a different degree)  All teach that you must be one of their group to
>>be saved.  If you look into their doctrine they do indeed teach that
>>their church is the only right one. [Editor note: Not so!]
>>
>>karen
> The sad fact is, however, that very few people ...
> have any real knowledge of the tenets of their faith.
> 
> Sean McLinden

1.  If one were to `search' for the ONE TRUE CHURCH, it would first be
    necessary to determine the CRITERIA that results in uniqueness.
2.  The final REFEREE as to an admissible criterion is the individual's
	 prayerful response.  External evidences, however, are helpful in
	 making an impression since they provide food for reflective thought
	 as well as something to pray about.
3.  Therefore, let's collect some criteria as well as some evidences,
    and let each of us be converted through our own reflection.

	 Please send (via mail):
	 A.  Church name, if (A) is a doctrine of an existing church.
	 B.  Your criteria for the ONE TRUE CHURCH;
	 C.  A brief justification/evidence of each point (e.g., scripture,
	     authoritative source, archaeology, personal opinion, etc).
	
	 For instance, some of my entries will be:
	 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (`Mormon'):
	 1.  Baptism by immersion (Matt. 3:16, John 3:23, Col 2:12)
	 2.  Head by a living prophet (Amos 3:7, Luke 1:70)

Your responses will be posted in summary form, organized by point and by
church.  As we become more educated in faith (not religion), we may
become better `christians' and exercise greater faith.

--Stephen Amerige
...!{philabs, okstate, allegra}!sbcs!amerige

"The Glory of God is Intelligence"  "Do It!"

larryg@teklds.UUCP (Larry Gardner) (02/26/85)

Tim,

It doesn't matter what Mormons or Catholics "think" their doctrine
is but actually what it is.  

Why are you so eager to defend the Mormon and Catholic churches anyway?

Check Mormon doctrine and the Catholic doctrine (what is documented and
written down.)

karen

larryg@teklds.UUCP (Larry Gardner) (02/26/85)

How can God be consistent and say that everyone will be saved?

He hasn't made it difficult to be "born again".  The criteria
for being saved is simply following Jesus.  Either you do or
you don't.  He certainly can't say, well we will let them
in anyway even if they don't follow whay I say.  I wouldn't
want to follow a wishy washy God like that!

karen

rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (02/27/85)

> Even though I consider myself to be a Christian, I do not presume that my
> beliefs are the only ones to be had, because there may be many paths to sal-
> vation which I am unaware of.  I find that Christianity works for me, and if I
> see someone leading the kind of life I lead (or want to lead) who is not a
> Christian, who am I to say anything about their salvation, not being God, and
> not knowing about his plan for those who do not follow Him?  Their religion is
> working for them.
> 
> The Church of Jesus Christ is *MY* ONE TRUE CHURCH.
> -- 
> 			... hey, we've gotta get out of this place,
>     			    there's got to be something better than this ...
> 
> Greg Skinner (gregbo)
> {allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo

Then how do you explain Jesus' statement, "No one comes to the Father except
through me"?

	*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***

mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (03/01/85)

In article <373@teklds.UUCP> larryg@teklds.UUCP (Karen Clark) writes:
> How can God be consistent and say that everyone will be saved?

What would be inconsistent about it?  Gawd didn't have
to set up this saved/damned system in the first place.

> He hasn't made it difficult to be "born again".  The criteria
> for being saved is simply following Jesus.  Either you do or
> you don't.  He certainly can't say, well we will let them
> in anyway even if they don't follow whay I say.

What about the billions who never had the opportunity to be "born again"?
Because they never heard of JC?  It was difficult for them.

> I wouldn't
> want to follow a wishy washy God like that!

Ah, you want a macho god who smites, burns, damns, etc.

Well, I certainly wouldn't want to follow a nasty god like the one 
you believe in.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh

tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (03/02/85)

Karen,

The sign of a true bigot is the question "Why are you bothering to defend
groups you don't even belong to?"  Sometimes it takes the form "If I'd known
you were a <whatever>, I wouldn't have said it."

Your distinction between the doctrines of the members of the church and the
doctrine of the church seems vague.  Are you suggesting a "secret doctrine"
to Catholicism and/or Mormonism, known only by the Inner Circle of priests?
If so, I would ask to see your evidence of its existence.  I trust you know
that such accounts are almost always frauds told by an organization's
enemies.  An example would be Jack Chick's Crusader Comics #12 and up,
including Alberto, about a vast conspiracy headed by the Jesuits who control
the Vatican.  Pure poppycock and vastly harmful; but the claims that
higher-ups are covering up prevent such lies from ever being fully quenched.

If I have misinterpreted you, please tell me what you meant by your
distinction.
-=-
Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center
ARPA:	Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K	uucp:	seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim
CompuServe:	74176,1360	audio:	shout "Hey, Tim!"

"Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are
but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains."
Liber AL, II:9.

laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/03/85)

re God being wishy-washy

The counter position to this one is that of Karl Rahner. (Actually, a lot
of other people have proposed it, but Rahner is probably the most famous.)
Rahner writes like an existential philosopher, so here goes:

	Christians must realise, however, that, besides the explicit
	faith which they profess as being members of the visible Church,
	there is an implicit faith which is also salvific. Through this
	implicit faith, men who have never accepted or even encountered
	Christian Revelation become, not just anonymous theists, but
	anonymous Christians. In other words, tehy place an act of
	conscious, though implicit, faith in the Triune God of Christian
	Revelation.

	Rahner's theology of the anonymous Christian is an extension of
	his theology of the supernatural existential. [Note: this is
	real fancy Rahner talk. It means a lot of things, but one of
	them is that by man's very existing he is fixed in a place 
	and time. In other words, man is incarnated. -- lac] Through the
	supernatural existential the unobjective Horizon of the
	human spirit [another Rahner buzz-word -- ``Grace'' does
	rather nicely here in most contexts, though sometimes only
	God will do -- lac] has become in the historical order
	the Triune God of Grace and Glory. By his Incarnation the Word
	has become the ground of man's elevation to the supernatural order
	and has also become God's historical revelation of himself to
	men. Therefore, when the human spirit, elevated by the supernatural
	existential, makes its loving surrender to the Horizon of the
	world, man receives the justifying grace of Christ. The surrender
	of the human spirit is a surrender in which both knowledge and love
	unite themselves in a single dymanic process. [...] A salutary 
	surrender of the huamn will to the Triune God is an implicit act
	of charity. [...] It follows, therefore, that, if the human
	subject's free response to his world includes in its intentionality
	an act of loving surrender to the world's Absolute Horizon, the
	human subject has made an implicit act of saluatory Christian
	faith. Ontologically and not just metaphorically, he has become
	an anonymous Christian.

		[From Theological Investigations, vol VI, pp 390-395]

Clear as mud, eh? The idea is that you cannot do any good thing except
through Jesus Christ. So all ``good people'' are good through the
same Christian God -- and all are saved through Him. Christians
are fortunate enough to have a better idea of what is going on.

I have real problmes with this definition of Christian myself. But it
*is* interesting...

Laura Creighton (anonymous Christian?)
utzoo!laura

gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (03/04/85)

> From: rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone)

>> Even though I consider myself to be a Christian, I do not presume that my
>> beliefs are the only ones to be had, because there may be many paths to sal-
>> vation which I am unaware of.  I find that Christianity works for me, and if
>> I see someone leading the kind of life I lead (or want to lead) who is not a
>> Christian, who am I to say anything about their salvation, not being God, and
>> not knowing about his plan for those who do not follow Him?  Their religion 
>> is working for them. (me)

> Then how do you explain Jesus' statement, "No one comes to the Father except
> through me"?

The recent discussions about how the Bible has been (mis?)translated over the
past 2000+ years since its initial writing have made me think a little deeper
about what I believe, and why I believe it.  Until someone with more knowledge
on the subject than I do tells me otherwise, I find it reasonable to believe
that God may have a plan for those who do not follow Him, let lead lives as
fruitful, spiritual and productive as Christians do.

I find that it is Jesus' message which is the most important thing that Chris-
tians should focus on, and not so much doctrine.  For example, my denomination
(AME) does not believe that you have to be baptized (in water) once you accept
Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior if you were baptized at birth.
However, the Baptist denomination requires that you are re-baptized once you
accept Jesus Christ.  Some Baptists will tell you that if you don't get baptized
again that you are still unsaved ("We are saved by faith, not works") and that
you will not go to Heaven.  

This kind of argument can be extended, loosely, to Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons,
and other religions, where the day-to-day life of the believer may be different
but the inner beliefs are still the same.  I can't honestly look a Muslim in the
face and say "You will not be saved" just because he does not believe in Jesus,
if he is leading a productive and spiritual life, praying for forgiveness, ab-
staining from that which would cause him to lose sight of his beliefs, and so on
and so forth.  Especially if he is leading a better life than I am.

Please, I don't want to get in a flame war over this.  I am content to live my
life and follow God's word to the best of my abilities ... I don't think that
my attitudes are unreasonable.  I'm willing to let other people who don't ne-
cessarily believe in what I believe do the same. 
-- 
			... hey, we've gotta get out of this place,
    			    there's got to be something better than this ...

Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo
gregbo%houxm.uucp@harvard.arpa