What are the Marks of the True Church?
Are you serious? Do you relly believe half of what you put on this web page? Did not Jesus say that there would be 4 marks of HIS CHURCH to distinquish between false religions ("ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, APOSTOLIC")? How can Protestants be ONE (John 17:21) if they are thousands, and Protestants can not claim to be apostolic! Finally, please read 1 Peter 2:9 and 1 Timothy 3:15.
RAY S.
Why yes, of course I believe at least half of what I write--and most of the time I believe all of it. In answer to your main question, you clearly have been exposed to little more than Roman Catholic propaganda regarding how to know the true church. Where else would you get the false notion that there are only four marks of the "true" church? Why else would you be writing with the faulty assumptions that you clearly hold?
For starters I suggest that you read the entry on this page titled "Becoming Roman Catholic." It identifies some of the false assumptions underlying your questions. Second, and more to the point, where does Jesus point to these four (and only these four) marks of his church? He said a lot more about identifying the church than what you provide. Third, what makes you think that the Roman Catholic church meets any one of the "marks" you present above? Let me see if I can address all these together.
"ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, APOSTOLIC"
I suppose you might be able to glean these four marks from certain statements Jesus makes. For instance, in John 17 Jesus does pray that his church would be "one." Yet you (along with all Roman Catholics) misinterpret this to mean something like "organizational unity" or "complete doctrinal unity"--which could not have been farther from the Savior's mind when he voiced these words. Obviously Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses could claim this kind of "oneness." What Jesus means instead is a spiritual unity; one that is marked by a fervent love for each other, a common lifestyle and philosophy of life, an eternal citizenship and a common eternal goal. Many who mentally assent to these things will be excluded for not embracing them from the heart (Matt 7:21-23). On the other hand, differing beliefs in nonessential issues excludes no one. Rome does not have this kind of unity, but Evangelicals do.
The next criterion you point to in identifying the true church is "Holy." Rome forfeited on this one long before the Protestant Reformation took place. Jesus said, "by their fruits you will know them." There is hardly a need to go into great detail about all of the corruption of the medieval Roman Catholic church. Included here are the practices of Reservations (popes reserving the richest benefices for themselves), Indulgences (sold to the laity to secure forgiveness for sins), Expectancies (tickets that were sold to bishops who then could bid even more money on an office that would be opening up soon), Dispensations (forgiveness from violations of canon Law that could be bought with money), and Nepotism (placement in the papacy of the pope’s illegitimate children). A classic example of an immoral decree may be found in the Fourth Lateran Council, which commanded that "Catholics . . . shall exterminate the heretics, possess the land without dispute and preserve it in the true faith. . . . Hence if forgers . . . are straightway justly put to death, . . . with much more justice can heretics . . . be not only excommunicated but also put to death." It simply will not do to argue (as do most Catholic apologists) that a distinction is to be made between what a pope/church practices and what he/it proclaims. One often "teaches" and "proclaims" much more by his actions than by his words. For instance, "They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny him" (Tit 1:16); or, "Prove yourselves doers of the Word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves," "If anyone thinks himself to be religious . . . . This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God . . . to keep oneself unstained by the world . . . [otherwise] . . . this man’s religion is worthless" (Jas 1:22, 26-27); or, "You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, who teaches and leads my servants into sexual immorality" (Rev 2:20). Popes regularly murdered their predecessors (e.g., Leo V was murdered by his successor, who in turn was murdered and succeeded by Sergius III), and were caught up in gross immorality (witness the period known as the Pornocracy, which began with Sergius III) and idolatry (John XII not only invoked Jupiter and Venus but turned the papal palace into a house of prostitution). Obviously Rome is disqualified from further consideration as a "Holy" church due to her countless corrupt practices.
The next criterion to which you point is that the church is "catholic." But all "catholic means is "universal." Not only does that cast your church in an oxymoronic light (how can something be "Roman" [a particular geographic location] and "universal" at the same time?), but it does not distinguish your church from any other church that is known universally. Evangelicalism is just as "catholic" as you claim Rome to be.
The final criterion you give is "apostolic," by which you no doubt mean that it is the same church one finds in the annuls of church history. I've already dispelled that notion in regard to Rome in the entry titled "Becoming Roman Catholic," and I refer the reader to that discussion to show the vast differences between the early church and the current Roman Catholic denomination. But Jesus never appealed to a subsequent generation of Christians as the criterion for truth. Instead he points to the teaching of the apostles themselves. Paul echoes this sentiment when he writes to the Galatians, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" (Gal 1:8). Roman Catholics constantly appeal to the beliefs of third- and fourth-century Christians as some kind of standard of truth--even those whose teaching cannot be squared with the NT teaching. They do so on the basis that the church is somehow "infallible." But Paul's words reveal a far different assumption. He assumed it was possible for not only all of the apostles ("we"), but also an "angel from heaven" to be in error about subsequent changes in his gospel as originally given. If we are not to believe even an angel from heaven--or even the apostles themselves!--if they were to come back and try to tell us something at odds with the original deposit, how much less should we believe subsequent generations of the church where their doctrine is at odds with the original deposit?! It will not do to argue that we cannot understand the original deposit without an infallible interpreter; for Paul simply assumes that we CAN understand it without one, and that we should be able to distinguish the truth from any subsequent error that we might receive from him or from an angel.
This leads to a criterion that you didn't list; namely, truth. Are we to submit to Rome simply because it may bear superficial marks of being Christ's church when it has strayed so far from the original deposit? Roman theology and NT theology are so utterly at odds with each other (in doctrines concerning priests, Mary, the saints, the papacy, the Lord's Supper, etc.), that Rome cannot possibly be the true church, even if there were no other contenders!
The bottom line is, the very "marks" of a true church that you point to are the same marks that are claimed by Eastern Orthodoxy and Mormonism (as well as almost every cult). So now what? How do you choose between these three options? How do you know that your opinion of who is the "true" church is itself correct? The fact is, unless you finally concede that we must use Scripture alone to determine Christ's "true" church, you can never be certain of what his "true" church is. And the minute you concede sola Scriptura, you must also abandon all those systems that deny sola Scriptura--including Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy, Mormonism, and all cults. The only option left at that point is Evangelicalism.
You also asked me to read two passages; 1 Pet 2:9 and 1 Tim 3:15, which I have provided below:
"But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light."
"if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."
To be entirely honest, I don’t know why you wanted me to read these, for nothing in them supports the concept of a Roman Catholic church. The first passage is denied by Rome inasmuch as it conflicts with Rome's idea of a ministerial priesthood. Peter's "royal priesthood" clearly includes all believers; while Rome's "ministerial priesthood" includes only the clergy (Catechism, Art. 1552, 1554). Rome does give lip service to a "priesthood of all believers" (Art. 1547), but this priesthood is clearly insignificant in comparison. So, whereas the NT emphasizes only of a priesthood that includes all believers and never once mentions a New Covenant priesthood that only some believers occupy, Rome emphasizes a ministerial priesthood occupied by only some believers, and rarely ever speaks of a priesthood occupied by all believers.
As for the 1 Tim 3:15 passage, Roman Catholics focus on the word "foundation" and argue that truth springs from the church. Therefore, the church, and not Scripture per se, is the ultimate source of truth. However, this is based on a dubious translation of the word hedraiôma (
eJdraivwma). This word can equally mean "foundation" (in the sense of the source of truth) or "support" (in the sense of the defender or protector truth). See J. Blunch, "Firm, Foundation, Certainty, Confirm," The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 1 (ed. Colin Brown; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 662. A survey of the major translations seems not to favor one rendition over the other: KJV, "ground"; ASV, "ground"; RSV, "bulwark"; NEB, "bulwark" (Webster defines "bulwark" as a "defensive wall"); NIV, "foundation"; NAB, "foundation"; NASB, "support." Perhaps, though, the Greek construction here is best taken as a hendiadys ("one through two"), which means that the second term is a synonym of the first ("the church, which is the pillar—that is, defensive wall—of the truth"). In any case, since this word occurs only once in the entire New Testament it is precarious to build an entire doctrine around it. Moreover, even if the meaning is "source," you still have not demonstrated that Rome is thereby that "source." How do you know it's not Eastern Orthodoxy? Or Mormonism? Or one of the cults? Or Evangelicalism? This is very typical of Roman Catholic defenders. They tend to see something that looks like ecclesial authority in the NT, and they automatically assume it must be speaking of Roman Catholic authority. In logic, we call that a non sequitur.E.S.