Is the idea of "One True Church" Biblical? (Jesus, gospel)

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I came across this passage in the Bible (Luke 9:46-50) when looking up something else:

46An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. 47Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. 48Then he said to them, "Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For he who is least among you all—he is the greatest."


49"Master," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us."
50"Do not stop him," Jesus said, "for whoever is not against you is for you."

Do you think this passage speaks against the authority of God being vested in the "One True Church"?

If some man who the Apostles don't know has the power to drive out demons in the name of Jesus, what does this say about the "keys to the kingdom"?

[tomspug]

The way I see it, Jesus is the only "key to the kingdom". Any attempt by others to monopolize truth is merely limiting the power of the gospel.

[rheff78]

I think this goes back to the old saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". You don't necessarily see them as being on your side, but they certainly aren't hurting you, and could possibly help you.

[kai]

how can you have one "true" church when people have different "truths" , and didnt god split us up after the tower of babel incident.

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by kai

how can you have one "true" church when people have different "truths" , and didnt god split us up after the tower of babel incident.

I think you have to define "church" before anything can be usefully discussed.

Regards,
Scott

[sojourner]

I think this bears some serious consideration where the issue of authority is concerned.

[jtartar]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

I came across this passage in the Bible (Luke 9:46-50) when looking up something else:



Do you think this passage speaks against the authority of God being vested in the "One True Church"?

If some man who the Apostles don't know has the power to drive out demons in the name of Jesus, what does this say about the "keys to the kingdom"?

Penguin,
The Bible is actually very clear about there being only one true church, Notice Eph 4:3-6.
We have Paul telling us that there should be no divisions among Christians, but that we should all speak in agreement and even have the same line of thought, 1Cor 1:10. If all spoke in agreement, that would invariably lead to one belief.
In the first century, epichristian times, Christianity was called THE WAY, because there was only one way to act that pleased the Holy God, Acts 9:2, 19:9,23, 22:4, 24:22.
Another point to remember; Jesus said that true Christians must worship God with spirit and truth, John 4:23,24. We know there is only one truth, while there is innumerable false beliefs.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by jtartar

Penguin,
The Bible is actually very clear about there being only one true church, Notice Eph 4:3-6.

Hmm. I think that passage can be interpreted in favour of universalism and ecumenicalism just as strongly as it can for the exclusivity you're implying.

Originally Posted by jtartar

We have Paul telling us that there should be no divisions among Christians, but that we should all speak in agreement and even have the same line of thought, 1Cor 1:10. If all spoke in agreement, that would invariably lead to one belief.

Isn't "all beliefs are valid" a form of agreement?

Originally Posted by jtartar

In the first century, epichristian times, Christianity was called THE WAY, because there was only one way to act that pleased the Holy God, Acts 9:2, 19:9,23, 22:4, 24:22.

Your references support the idea that the early Christian church was called "the Way". They don't support your explanation for the term, though.

Originally Posted by jtartar

Another point to remember; Jesus said that true Christians must worship God with spirit and truth, John 4:23,24. We know there is only one truth, while there is innumerable false beliefs.

How do you know there's only one truth? Even if there is, can't there be many expressions of the same truth?

In the story of the blind men and the elephant, does the truth of the first blind man's claim that an elephant is like a wall somehow mean that the other blind men are wrong in their descriptions?

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

In the story of the blind men and the elephant, does the truth of the first blind man's claim that an elephant is like a wall somehow mean that the other blind men are wrong in their descriptions?

How do we know there's an elephant at all? It's only because there is someone not involved in elephant-fondling who has a more distant point of view and can pronounce on the existence of the elephant. The independent observer knows the truth that, although it feels like a wall, it's actually the side of an elephant. The person who says "it feels like a wall" is telling the truth about his experience but he's wrong about what the basis of his experience is. Likewise for the other persons touching the elephant.

So surprisingly, this parable actually does the opposite of what Penguin is using it for. It illustrates the fact that there IS one and only one truth, not many. There is one real truth (it's an elephant), but people have different contact with it. There is confusion among the elephant-fondlers about what the basis is for their experience, that's all. But the parable seems to imply that it's possible for someone to come along and correct peoples' misapprehensions about what they're touching.