Has there ALWAYS been a true church?

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

...The true Church agrees with all the foundation doctrine taught through the Apostles.

Wadr, the true church mostly has no clue about any of the Apostles doctrine, as strange as that may seem; and It is not determined to exist or not exist according to any man's doctrinal yardstick. Not sure who the OP is here, but I'm kinda surprised at the two of you? I had supposed that you both grasped that the real church has no acronym lol.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So... if Oneness theology and "Jesus name baptism" and "Holy Ghost baptism evidenced by glossalalia" are true doctrines of God's true church... then has there been an unbroken line of assemblies from Pentecost to today?

If not, does that mean there periods of time when there was NO ASSEMBLY OF TRUE SAINTS in the world?


And if that be true, how could any church truly come about ... during a time when there was not one single SAVED BELIEVER on earth?

Esaias, you confuse the definition of church with that of congregation here, understandably...imo, leading to the confusion @ 'saved believer,' which is both redundant and misleading, as no believer alive has made it to 'the end' to know for sure if they are saved or not...it's that pesky seminary yack, wadr.

The true church is made of living stones; and Melchizedek might argue for its unbroken existence? Dunno there, but i'd take for granted that any answer you come up with that most of your peers agree with is at least highly suspect, no offense intended.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Lafon

Michael, it would do you good to check what Marvin Arnold discovered. The evidence is rather convincing, and I'm confident your opinion might just be somewhat different should you elect to do that.

Sorry to tell you this, but the evidence is not reliable.
I researched the information in it and found too many mistakes.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I read Ancient Champions of Oneness decades ago. It was interesting. What was proved I think was there were always Oneness believers. If there is more proof now that there were always those who believed in it and taught baptism into the name of Jesus and the Holy Spirit with tongues that's really good.

HOWEVER please don't make the mistake of thinking that Oneness and Acts 2:38 is synonomous with being the true Church.

The true Church agrees with all the foundation doctrine taught through the Apostles. One could teach those things like Oneness Churches do and still not be the true Church.

I can accept the idea a genuine church being deficient in certain areas. The Corinthians, Galatians, and most of the seven churches in Revelation had serious problems with their doctrines and practices. There seems to be a basic minimum which would qualify an assembly as being an authentic God-planted ekklesia. If they fail to grow they are subject to being cut off, it seems.

Just thinking out loud here but doesn't the great commission at least imply that a genuine assembly is started by a genuine assembly? Like begets like and all that? How could a heresy give birth to truth? How could a pseudo ekklesia produce a true one?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by shazeep

Esaias, you confuse the definition of church with that of congregation here, understandably...imo, leading to the confusion @ 'saved believer,' which is both redundant and misleading, as no believer alive has made it to 'the end' to know for sure if they are saved or not...it's that pesky seminary yack, wadr.

The true church is made of living stones; and Melchizedek might argue for its unbroken existence? Dunno there, but i'd take for granted that any answer you come up with that most of your peers agree with is at least highly suspect, no offense intended.

By "church" I mean ekklesia ie an assembly. By "true church" I mean an assembly of people actually called and sanctified by the grace of God into new covenant relationship with Him through faith as taught by the apostles.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Sorry to tell you this, but the evidence is not reliable.
I researched the information in it and found too many mistakes.

Arnold, the Baptists, and Armstrongites all claim the same groups as representative of their "unbroken lineage" back to the apostles.

[KeptByTheWord]

As to if there has always been the "Apostolic doctrine" as currently is taught today, I would say no. But a true church - the Lord knows those who are His, and I believe hearts who reach out to the Lord in faith, perhaps not having all elements of the original apostolic truths, the Lord remains the final judge of that.

And we must consider - what if we don't possess all the elements of the original apostolic doctrine? What of us? That concerns me more than anything else.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Esaias

By "church" I mean ekklesia ie an assembly. By "true church" I mean an assembly of people actually called and sanctified by the grace of God into new covenant relationship with Him through faith as taught by the apostles.

So, man's definition then, and not God's. If i get you. Is there a ref tying ecclesia and true church? Ty

[Aquila]

There have always been true believers.

[PastorTLArt]

I rest the topic in the words of Scripture, Romans 10:9, If you confess Jesus is Lord and Believe in your Heart that he is risen from the dead you will be saved.

As long as that has been known to people then there has been a TRUE CHURCH on earth!