What is the one true Church?

[Ziggy]

(ZENIT News – Catholic Vote / Washington, 03.15.2023).-
An act of vandalism against a Catholic church in Connecticut over the weekend marked a grim milestone: The 300th known attack on a Catholic church in America since the spring of 2020...
...CatholicVote has been tracking the attacks since the civil unrest that followed the death of George Floyd in May 2020. The riots started a wave of violence and vandalism against Catholic churches that only accelerated after the unrest died down...

...“This epidemic of violence against Catholic churches has created a climate of fear for Catholics around the country,” said Brian Burch, president of CatholicVote. “This is an unacceptable state of affairs –
no American should have to walk around wondering, ‘Is my church next?’”

In 2020 and 2021, most of the attacks appear to have been motivated by general anti-Catholic ideology, specifically from Black Lives Matter rhetoric. Since the Supreme Court draft opinion in the Dobbs case was leaked in May 2022, however, most of the attacks have been perpetrated by pro-abortion extremists. 140 of the attacks have taken place since the Dobbs leak last May.

Acts of vandalism now frequently feature spray-painted, threatening messages like “if abortions aren’t safe, neither are you.”

Garland admitted that federal law enforcement has prosecuted more pro-life Americans than pro-abortion radicals. Why? Because pro-life advocates make no secret of their activities, while the criminals who have attacked pro-life groups did so under cover of darkness.

“What Garland doesn’t admit here is the obvious: the pro-abortion attacks on Catholic churches and Catholic-run pro-life groups are criminal (which is why they act in secret),” said CatholicVote President Brian Burch. “Pro-life activists are there during the middle of the day because they know what they are doing is legal and protected by the U.S. Constitution.”
read more here

Perhaps Grailhunter can offer suggestions as to what the Church needs to change in order to avoid such attacks. I'll wait right here for a thoughtful reply.

It's not the denomination. It's God and anything associated with God they are trying to destroy.
Pro-life clinics that are trying to hekp women who decide to keep their babies are having molotov cocktails thrown through the windows.
They hate the family structure.
They HATE.
And that's the root of the problem.
They go after Jewish synagogues as well. Protestant churches, all churches were under attack during covid, forcing people not to come together to worship in all forms.
They can't crucify Christ's body on the cross, but they can try to crush His Spirit.
We can't allow this to happen.

Hugs

 

[Jim B]

Take a closer peek at it . Look at the root of it .
They were killed for NOT admitting to witchcraft . No lamb can admit to a lie .
And upon farther examination , i seem to notice properties were seized . Some who had much
were accused of being witches and their properties taken and given to , YOU GOT IT those who desired such properties .
And if folks actually examined the girls who did the so called accusations , IT SEEMS they were the ones UNDER
the WITCHCRAFT . THESE girls had been messing around
in the woods with witchcraft . THEN SUDDENLY they go into these coma like states
and upon waking up , THEY BEGIN ACCUSING . Not a lick of this adds up . NO TRUE Leaders of any church
WOULD have bought into these lies . Not to mention
WHEN were we , as christains ever taught to put ANYONE TO DEATH .
Rather we are to cast out such who pratice such things . I SEE THE DEVIL ALL OVER THIS .
You do realize that these men and women they accused , WERE actually christains being accused of lies
and in some cases , IT was for their property . exactly .

Well, isn't this a fine example of "the pot calling the kettle black"! You, who constantly condemn much of the body of Christ, now object to the same behavior. Hypocrisy!!!

 

[Jim B]

It's not the denomination. It's God and anything associated with God they are trying to destroy.
Pro-life clinics that are trying to hekp women who decide to keep their babies are having molotov cocktails thrown through the windows.
They hate the family structure.
They HATE.
And that's the root of the problem.
They go after Jewish synagogues as well. Protestant churches, all churches were under attack during covid, forcing people not to come together to worship in all forms.
They can't crucify Christ's body on the cross, but they can try to crush His Spirit.
We can't allow this to happen.

Hugs

You're actually accusing pro-choice people of this behavior? Who are the ones who are preventing women from going to women's health centers? Who are the ones posting here and elsewhere who are denying women the freedom to choose their own maternal health care? Who are the ones who HATE???

And lumping people who believe in woman's right to freedom with those who attack synagogues and churches is absolute madness! And finishing your absurd diatribe with the anti-Christian "They can't crucify Christ's body on the cross, but they can try to crush His Spirit. We can't allow this to happen" clearly shows that you can't even understand the basics of Christ's teaching and/or the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

In both Testaments we are instructed to love our neighbor as ourself. Did you tear those verses out of your Bible (if you even own or read one) to promote your anti-Christian fascism?

 

[Grailhunter]

Apparently, you didn’t pay attention to the lesson I gave you on civil and criminal cases from my last post.

And I thought I explained this to you.....molesting women and children is a criminal case.....civil cases are settlements.
If the case is against the Church it is civil.....settlement....can't put the Church in Prison.
If it is a person it is criminal unless the victim is payed off.....settlements to not press charges.

God is revealed in Scripture as ONE Being manifested in THREE distinct Persons:
(Gen. 1:26, Matt. 28:19, John 15:26, 1 Cor. 12:4-6, 2 Cor. 13:14, 1 John 5:7, Eph. 4:6, Psalm 68:5, Mal. 2:10, Isa. 63:16, 2 Cor. 1:3-4, John 3:16, John 8:41, 1 Thess. 3:13, Isa. 7:14, Isa. 9:6, John 1:1, John 1:3, John 8:58, John 10:30, John 15:9, John 20:28, Acts 5:3-4, 2 Cor. 4:4, Phil. 2:6, Col. 2:9, 1 Tim. 3:16, Heb. 1:8, Tit. 2:13, John 14:16-18, Luke 12:10, 2 Cor. 3:17, 2 Cor. 13:5, John 14:23, Acts 5:3-4)

Paul refers to this self-denial of the flesh in service to God “mortification” because by this denial of the body, we DIE to the flesh so as to LIVE in the spirit:
"If you live after the flesh, you shall die, but if through the spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live." (Romans 8:13; see also Col. 3:5, and Gal. 5:24).

Paul refers to this self-denial of the flesh in service to God “mortification” because by this denial of the body, we DIE to the flesh so as to LIVE in the spirit:
"If you live after the flesh, you shall die, but if through the spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live." (Romans 8:13; see also Col. 3:5, and Gal. 5:24).

The word, “Trinity” is simply an explanation for this reality – so it doesn’t need to be in the Bible, as it is REVEALED in the Bible.
SAME goes for the word “sanctified” in 1 Cor. 7:38

Three distinct person form the Godhead....and it does not need to be in the Bible if the definition of the word fits what is in the Bible....agreed.

They are paid to victims filing CIVIL charges. Criminal charges are files by the state, not the victim – especially in felony cases.

If you’re gonna be an anti-Catholic – don’t be an ignorant one . . .

You need to understand the law and how it works.
Civil charges....they have to be filed.....the Catholic Church does not want that and will usually settle with the victims before it hits the courts.

What sanctifies the celibate person is the fact he is doing it for the service of God.

Celibate or not servicing God is a the same. As I said celibacy really means nothing but causes great evil and sin.

Paul refers to this self-denial of the flesh in service to God “mortification” because by this denial of the body, we DIE to the flesh so as to LIVE in the spirit:
"If you live after the flesh, you shall die, but if through the spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live." (Romans 8:13; see also Col. 3:5, and Gal. 5:24).

I see no variant of the word mortification in these scriptures......is the word in the Catholic Bible.

If celibacy in the priesthood has “caused” child molestation – WHAT caused the molestation of even MORE children by MARRIED Protestant ministers??

For one I disagree that there is more of any kind of sexual sins in the Protestant churches.
Is it beyond your understanding that horny men do weird things?

I see you know as LITTLE about history as you do Scripture.
For your information – NOT all of Luther’s 95 (not 90) Theses were complaints. Some of them were agreements with the Church.

I think 91 were negatives.....I don't have time to look at it right now but I do not remember the last 4.

Then you reject the Word of Almighty GOD, which says He is MAKING us holy (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, 7:1, Phil. 2:12, Heb 12:14).

I believe in saints as in Christians but I do not believe holly people....the scriptures are using an indirect context.....no Holy Peter...Holy Paul
Holy John or even Holy Apostles. Only God is Holy.....And that may have been one of reasons that the Catholics got off track....they see themselves with the authority of God so they think they are Holy.

This is precisely the reason why lawyers went after the Catholic Church and NOT the smaller Protestant sects.

In Protestant author, Philip Jenkins’ book, Pedophiles and Priests – he explains that the molestation problem is FAR WORSE in the Protestant sects. Unfortunately, because many of them are not insured, there was NO MONEY in it for the lawyers, so the cases were never pursued.
Jenkins lays out the FBI statistics as well as the statistics from the Insurance companies.

Again I disagree that the problem is worse with the Protestants.

 

[Grailhunter]

Plenty of scholarly studies have been done on this matter; there isn't a shred of evidence that celibacy contributes in any way to scandals. The onus is on you to find one that supports your diabolical myth making. Prove your despicable claim or stop scourging my Lord's Body with your relativistic liberalism.

Does common sense apply. Then your just left with evil Priests molesting women and children.....I will go with horny Priests so as to put the blame on moronic system.

 

[Taken]

If you continue to read the bible by cherry-picking verses, you will remain confused and you will never grow in Christ.

You repeatedly use the Term “cherry-picking” as an implied slam accusation….

Scripture is Full of:
THIS “acceptable”… “THAT” not acceptable…
“THIS” applicable to “THIS” person.
“THAT” applicable to “THAT” person.

And absolutely that is “cherry-picking”.

What Applies to YOU, does not Apply to me, and visa versa.

If a person, any person CHOOSES to be, remain, change their mind regarding celibacy…their choice that applies to them.

When the prerequisite for any JOB is to promise to be and remain celibate for the entirety of their natural life….that is a tall order, that hangs on their own natural weakness to keep their promise.
I presume Some do maintain their promise….and suspect as Scripture teaches men are weak…and many fall short of keeping their promise … and have to deal with their own secret shortcomings, shame, and maybe a good thing to have access to plenty of wine to drown their sorrows.

 

[Taken]

And I thought I explained this to you.....molesting women and children is a criminal case.....civil cases are settlements.
If the case is against the Church it is civil.....settlement....can't put the Church in Prison.

It’s tricky with Catholics. Their Church head and Governing State is one and the Same.

Congregates were for centuries directed to take wrong doings, accusation complaints to the Church and Governing authorities…one and the Same.

How atrocities come to light, is primarily by X-Catholics taking their complaints to governmental authorities, other than the Vatican State.

The truth comes out…but statue of limitations have passed the dead-line.

 

[Illuminator]

What convoluted gobbledygook.

A group of BLM protest a black man’s death.

A group of Catholics begin tallying Catholic Church vandalism since BLM began their protest.

Pro abortionists appear to be heavily involved in perpetrating Vandalism at Catholic Churches.

And somehow you think Protestants should solve your Catholic Church’s Vandalism problem?

Why ask such a stupid question? I'm asking @Grailhunter what changes the Church needs to make in order to avoid such attacks. The question is too deep for you. By the looks of things, it's too deep for Grailhunter. The fear of proven to be wrong is a paralyzing neurosis. We all make mistakes.

 

[Ziggy]

You're actually accusing pro-choice people of this behavior? Who are the ones who are preventing women from going to women's health centers? Who are the ones posting here and elsewhere who are denying women the freedom to choose their own maternal health care? Who are the ones who HATE???

And lumping people who believe in woman's right to freedom with those who attack synagogues and churches is absolute madness! And finishing your absurd diatribe with the anti-Christian "They can't crucify Christ's body on the cross, but they can try to crush His Spirit. We can't allow this to happen" clearly shows that you can't even understand the basics of Christ's teaching and/or the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

In both Testaments we are instructed to love our neighbor as ourself. Did you tear those verses out of your Bible (if you even own or read one) to promote your anti-Christian fascism?

Sometimes I wonder what planet you live on.
Abortion is definately NOT reproductive health, it's murder.
I find it rather amazing that the ones who are trying to save lives from getting ripped apart in the womb, you accuse of being hateful.
That's ironic.
Women have the right to keep their legs shut.
Women have the right to contraceptives.
Women have the right to give their children up for adoption.
Women have lots of rights.
What rights does that baby have while it's being sucked out limb by limb from what should be the most protected place on earth?

Show me the Love of a woman who chooses to destroy her own child.

Reproductive health care is the biggest lie the devil ever sown, and you eat it up like candy.

I don't attack people for having abortions. God will deal with that.
But I don't have to agree with it. And I don't have to hide my opinion concerning it.
I do agree that in very rare occasions when this procedure may be needed.
Life of the mother. In the case of rape, only if the rapist also goes to prison. Incest, only if the family member also goes to prison.
If the child must die, then so should the one who committed the crime.

Don't talk to me about the free choice to kill an innocent life.
Read your own bible.

 

[amigo de christo]

Well, isn't this a fine example of "the pot calling the kettle black"! You, who constantly condemn much of the body of Christ, now object to the same behavior. Hypocrisy!!!

I was going after the false leaders of said church at that time . Just like i expose the false ones of today .
Ye can see the error of them , yet you cannot see the error of todays leaders .

 

[amigo de christo]

The golden bull of all inclusivity has blinded the eyes of many by preaching a false love .

 

[amigo de christo]

Sometimes I wonder what planet you live on.
Abortion is definately NOT reproductive health, it's murder.
I find it rather amazing that the ones who are trying to save lives from getting ripped apart in the womb, you accuse of being hateful.
That's ironic.
Women have the right to keep their legs shut.
Women have the right to contraceptives.
Women have the right to give their children up for adoption.
Women have lots of rights.
What rights does that baby have while it's being sucked out limb by limb from what should be the most protected place on earth?

Show me the Love of a woman who chooses to destroy her own child.

Reproductive health care is the biggest lie the devil ever sown, and you eat it up like candy.

I don't attack people for having abortions. God will deal with that.
But I don't have to agree with it. And I don't have to hide my opinion concerning it.
I do agree that in very rare occasions when this procedure may be needed.
Life of the mother. In the case of rape, only if the rapist also goes to prison. Incest, only if the family member also goes to prison.
If the child must die, then so should the one who committed the crime.

Don't talk to me about the free choice to kill an innocent life.
Read your own bible.

No wonder he thinks so many church leaders are fine and good . That is why he constantly goes after me
for exposing the false ones . He thinks certain things are just fine when indeed they ought to be exposed for what they are .

 

[Grailhunter]

Why ask such a stupid question? I'm asking Grailhunter what changes the Church needs to make in order to avoid such attacks. The question is too deep for you. By the looks of things, it's too deep for him.

I am sorry I missed this? They have ruined this site....jumps around....hangs up....full of advertisements.
Are you asking specifically what needs to change so the main topic is not the Church's history or what is going on now as far as sexual misconduct?

 

[amigo de christo]

I do realize.
I was just saying, ..... politics.
Wolves in sheeps clothing are everywhere.
Hugs

 

[Ziggy]

Thank You for sharing Friend
Hugs

 

[Illuminator]

The golden bull of all inclusivity has blinded the eyes of many by preaching a false love .

Amen!

DIVERSITY OR INCLUSION?​

On virtually every college campus there is an office of diversity, or an office of diversity and inclusion. No candidate for an administrative post at any college can be expected to win the job unless he embraces diversity and inclusion. However, the diversity industry is not limited to higher education: diversity and inclusion managers, speakers, and trainers dot the landscape, instructing institutions ranging from the U.S. Army to the Fortune 500.

The title of this essay is happily heterodox, or politically incorrect. It suggests there is a tension between these two popular virtues, inviting us to choose between them. We must. But to those who have mastered the language of diversity and inclusion—they know the drill by rote—nothing could be more foreign than to cast these attributes as polar opposites. Indeed, the very idea that these are contradictory principles is enough to make them nauseous.

Diversity means one size does not fit all; inclusion means one size fits all. One cannot logically support both at the same time. We have to choose. Either we believe in pluralism, which is what diversity means, or we believe in uniformity, which is what inclusion means. Diversity is based on exclusion, the very opposite of its alleged co-virtue. Behaviorally, diversity means we are allowed to shop around: if we don’t like Macy’s, we can go to Neiman Marcus. Inclusion means there are no exceptions: Fourth of July celebrations exclude no Americans.

There are plenty of good reasons to support diversity and inclusion, but not simultaneously. We want men’s and women’s sports, including the sex segregation that marks the Olympics; otherwise, it would be unfair to women. That’s a tribute to diversity, not inclusion. We want men and women, of all races, ethnicities, religions, and sexual orientations, to have one vote. That’s a tribute to inclusion, not diversity.

Sometimes the confusion is over the meaning of equality and equity. Equality means sameness, or an identical status; equity means fairness, or justice. It is only fair that students be given the grade they deserve; to give them all the same grade is to counsel injustice. It is only fair that all those in police custody are treated equally before the law; to treat some differently is to counsel injustice.

There is much talk these days about “marriage equality.” It is shorthand for allowing homosexuals to marry. But there are problems with this position, one of which touches on fairness. In other words, it is not axiomatic that marriage equality means marriage equity.

There is no limiting principle to marriage equality. If all those who seek to marry are to be treated equally, i.e., equal to a man and a woman who seek to marry, then on what basis can we deny two women from seeking to marry one man? On what basis can we deny a father from marrying his daughter? These are not hypothetical.

We have no shortage of Americans pushing for polygamy. While incest is still a taboo, there are cases like Patricia and Allen Muth, brother and sister, who have sought to get married. Then there is the case of David Epstein, a Columbia University professor of political science; three years ago he sought to justify having sex with his 24-year-old daughter. Indeed, his lawyer said to the court, “It’s okay for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home. How is this so different?”

Without a limiting principle, there is no logical way to deny marriage to anyone. This is the problem with marriage equality. Marriage equity, however, invokes the principle of justice, its limiting principle being procreation. Historically speaking, up until yesterday we thought it just to limit marriage to the only two persons capable of creating a family, namely one man and woman. Moreover, we know from countless studies that children do best when reared in intact families—it is the veritable gold standard. This begs the question: why would any society want to confer equal status on sexual relationships other than those that are heterosexual, monogamous, and united in the institution of marriage?

If something is special, it must be treated as special in society, and in the law. If it is not special, then we can adopt a random system, treating all competitors as equals. But history has shown that the most equitable marital relationships for society—the ones that most fairly serve the public interest—are heterosexual monogamous unions.

It is argued that if marriage is tied to procreation, that would disqualify sterile men and women. Not at all. They possess the attributes that make them ready substitutes to assume parental responsibilities in the event their kin suffer divorce or death. Those attributes are tied to the respective sexes: for different psychological and social reasons, boys and girls need moms and dads; two adults of the same sex are not adequate substitutes.

In short, marriage, defined equitably,
should rest on exclusivity:
it should be reserved exclusively for one man and one woman.
That’s what nature ordained, and what nature’s God intended.

DIVERSITY OR INCLUSION? - Catholic League

William A. Donohue

www.catholicleague.org

That's sociology, not theology. I hope @Grailhunter offers a thoughtful response. His recycled ancient heresies are boring.

 

[Taken]

This entire rant

Beyond your comprehension …lol
nothing new.

Paul had being angry

Your words…not mine. lol

As to your last whiny comment i RED - God DID say that man and woman together was good.

Me commenting God said man and woman together is Good…is whiny…and then you repeat it …. LOL ok whiny…lol

A celibate person serving God is called "Even BETTER" (1 Cor. 7:38) . . .

1 Cor 7:
[37] Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.


Making a pledge of celibacy is verse [37] and conditional.


So what are you talking about he giving her not in marriage, has to do with a celibate priest?

[38] So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.

 

[Grailhunter]

Amen!

DIVERSITY OR INCLUSION?​

On virtually every college campus there is an office of diversity, or an office of diversity and inclusion. No candidate for an administrative post at any college can be expected to win the job unless he embraces diversity and inclusion. However, the diversity industry is not limited to higher education: diversity and inclusion managers, speakers, and trainers dot the landscape, instructing institutions ranging from the U.S. Army to the Fortune 500.

The title of this essay is happily heterodox, or politically incorrect. It suggests there is a tension between these two popular virtues, inviting us to choose between them. We must. But to those who have mastered the language of diversity and inclusion—they know the drill by rote—nothing could be more foreign than to cast these attributes as polar opposites. Indeed, the very idea that these are contradictory principles is enough to make them nauseous.

Diversity means one size does not fit all; inclusion means one size fits all. One cannot logically support both at the same time. We have to choose. Either we believe in pluralism, which is what diversity means, or we believe in uniformity, which is what inclusion means. Diversity is based on exclusion, the very opposite of its alleged co-virtue. Behaviorally, diversity means we are allowed to shop around: if we don’t like Macy’s, we can go to Neiman Marcus. Inclusion means there are no exceptions: Fourth of July celebrations exclude no Americans.

There are plenty of good reasons to support diversity and inclusion, but not simultaneously. We want men’s and women’s sports, including the sex segregation that marks the Olympics; otherwise, it would be unfair to women. That’s a tribute to diversity, not inclusion. We want men and women, of all races, ethnicities, religions, and sexual orientations, to have one vote. That’s a tribute to inclusion, not diversity.

Sometimes the confusion is over the meaning of equality and equity. Equality means sameness, or an identical status; equity means fairness, or justice. It is only fair that students be given the grade they deserve; to give them all the same grade is to counsel injustice. It is only fair that all those in police custody are treated equally before the law; to treat some differently is to counsel injustice.

There is much talk these days about “marriage equality.” It is shorthand for allowing homosexuals to marry. But there are problems with this position, one of which touches on fairness. In other words, it is not axiomatic that marriage equality means marriage equity.

There is no limiting principle to marriage equality. If all those who seek to marry are to be treated equally, i.e., equal to a man and a woman who seek to marry, then on what basis can we deny two women from seeking to marry one man? On what basis can we deny a father from marrying his daughter? These are not hypothetical.

We have no shortage of Americans pushing for polygamy. While incest is still a taboo, there are cases like Patricia and Allen Muth, brother and sister, who have sought to get married. Then there is the case of David Epstein, a Columbia University professor of political science; three years ago he sought to justify having sex with his 24-year-old daughter. Indeed, his lawyer said to the court, “It’s okay for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home. How is this so different?”

Without a limiting principle, there is no logical way to deny marriage to anyone. This is the problem with marriage equality. Marriage equity, however, invokes the principle of justice, its limiting principle being procreation. Historically speaking, up until yesterday we thought it just to limit marriage to the only two persons capable of creating a family, namely one man and woman. Moreover, we know from countless studies that children do best when reared in intact families—it is the veritable gold standard. This begs the question: why would any society want to confer equal status on sexual relationships other than those that are heterosexual, monogamous, and united in the institution of marriage?

If something is special, it must be treated as special in society, and in the law. If it is not special, then we can adopt a random system, treating all competitors as equals. But history has shown that the most equitable marital relationships for society—the ones that most fairly serve the public interest—are heterosexual monogamous unions.

It is argued that if marriage is tied to procreation, that would disqualify sterile men and women. Not at all. They possess the attributes that make them ready substitutes to assume parental responsibilities in the event their kin suffer divorce or death. Those attributes are tied to the respective sexes: for different psychological and social reasons, boys and girls need moms and dads; two adults of the same sex are not adequate substitutes.

In short, marriage, defined equitably,
should rest on exclusivity:
it should be reserved exclusively for one man and one woman.
That’s what nature ordained, and what nature’s God intended.

DIVERSITY OR INCLUSION? - Catholic League

William A. Donohue

www.catholicleague.org

That's sociology, not theology. I hope @Grailhunter offers a thoughtful response. His recycled ancient heresies are boring.

Did this come from Berkeley?

 

[Taken]

Why ask such a stupid question?

LOL, if it’s a stupid question....you just repeated asking a non-Catholic what changes the Catholic Church needs to make in order to avoid being attacked.

I'm asking @Grailhunter what changes the Church needs to make in order to avoid such attacks.

LOL...in your words ... a stupid question.

The question is too deep for you. By the looks of things, it's too deep for Grailhunter. The fear of proven to be wrong is a paralyzing neurosis. We all make mistakes.

Has nothing to do with being DEEP.....or FEAR....just silly that a NON-Catholic might be the solution for attacks on the Catholic Churches.
The attacks are committed by creeps who operated under the cover of darkness and secrecy.....
Off on a tangent...tossing in “fear of being proven wrong”...

 

[JunChosen]

It is often asked, “What is the right denomination?” There are hundreds, if not thousands of denominations all claiming to be this one true church, but does God recognize any of these as His representative on earth? This subject should be approached prayerfully and honestly. If there was but one church in the beginning, established by our Lord, there should be but the one church in the end —

Indeed with prayer and honesty! Please read: Romans 11:25-27.

The word church was first used in the New Testament and is a translation of the Greek word ekklesia, which means a calling out. Jesus said to his disciples, “I have chosen you out of the world.” (John 15:19)

But rather more appropriately, John 15:16 reads:
Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and [that] your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

The true church is a company of believers who, in accepting the invitation of Christ, have become sanctified or separated from the world, worldly pursuits and worldly organizations.

The paragraph above is of course a false statement! No Scripture is found that can be read that "accepting Jesus " has any merit in our sanctification (Ephesians 2:8-9). In fact, Jesus gave and sacrificed Himself for His church.

Thus, the true church is not a place to go to, nor is it a denomination to belong to. The church is the gathering of sincere believers. Paul emphasized this when he confirmed that Jesus’ followers were baptized only into Christ and not into an earthly organization. There is but one baptism, and that is into Christ. Thus, it is a misconception that one joins or is baptized into a particular church denomination.

True. However, it is mandatory to be Baptized in Jesus' name. Just as we end our prayers with, "In Jesus name we pray."

To God Be The Glory