On WHAT basis does your Church claim to be the One TRUE-Faith Church of the Bible?

Dear friend in Christ,

On WHAT basis does your Church claim to be the One TRUE-Faith Church of the Bible?

OR: Is this not a factor in salvation’s path?

God Bless you,

Your question only makes sense if one thinks of the Church as a visible, indefectible, authoritative and hierarchical body. You have to understand that from a denomational church model this generally isn’t the case. For Orthodox and Catholic the grace of God is mediated to one through the sacraments of the church. For those who do not ascribe to such a model the question makes no sense. Luther kept a role for the visible church and the sacraments but among groups descended from the Anabaptists any visible body is more or less a practical matter. Theexistence of a traceable, identifiable, hierarchical Church that safeguards the teachings of Christ is not considered. This is a Catholic/Orthodox mindset.

We claim to be part of the “One TRUE-Faith Church of the Bible”, but we do not claim to be that church exclusively. We base this claim on the fact that we preach and adhere faithfully to the doctrines set out in the Bible.

No, it is not my church’s teaching that the Church must be limited to one hierarchical denomination. As Article 29 of the Belgic Confession stated:

The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church-- and no one ought to be separated from it.

How does one know the pure word of God and administration of the sacraments without the Church to determine them? In the beginning and indeed today there were many competing writings and movements that all claim to be Christian yet teach things radically at odds with each other. Everyone insists on some sort of standard, but how is that standard objectively determined in the absence of a teaching office? Would a God who leaves us to ourselves on matters of heaven and hell truly be a God of love?

IMHO, the more a church assists you to become a better Christian, the truer it is.

Great response. For non-Catholics, this question doesn’t makes sense.

In the 4,000 some odd years of Judaism that preceded Christianity, God had himself a chosen people (and they still are His chosen people, for that matter). At any point in the history of Judaism- and here, I’m especially looking at periods of time in which there is no living prophet and no new revelation is being introduced- was there ever a point where God introduced a teaching office with the purpose of always having an objective standard within Judaism? Or did God “leave them to themselves,” as long as you ignore the whole “chosen people” status…and you’ll also have to set aside all the prophets, the revelations, the miracles and various types of deliverance…but as long as you set all that aside, when it comes to having a hierarchy and a teaching office with supreme authority, did God leave his chosen people to themselves in these matters?

Keep in mind, the main point here is that I’m poking holes in the argument that this is an absolute necessity and that we can draw broadly negative conclusions about the nature of God if there is no such teaching office.



My church doesn’t claim to be the one true church. We do worship the one true God. Our church points people towards relationship with the one true God.

I agree with other posters that the idea of one true church is not something familiar to protestant churches. There are many churches that are faithfully serving God, but I don’t know if one is more True than the other. I do see some degree of danger if we put too much faith in an earthly “true” church instead of putting that faith in the true God.

Since the Great Schism in 1054 there hasn’t been “One”, but “Two” who claim with sacramental authority to be the “One” church. So what’s your definition.

Really it’s a rhetorical question. As an almost Catholic, I just find these types of threads to be offensive and based in pride. It really comes across as “hey tell us how great we are and why you are so screwed up…” It just doesn’t help.

And as stated before, there isn’t “One” and it really doesn’t matter. The presence of other valid churches doesn’t lessen the authenticity of the Roman Catholic Church.


The presence of other valid churches doesn’t take away from the authenticity of the RCC.

I never said there was not a church. There is still a church, and it preaches the pure word of God and administers the sacraments/ordinances as well as provides pastoral care and discipline. We are never without the church or its guidance unless we separate ourselves from it by choice.

Yes, there has always been diversity both within and without the body of Christ. There has always been differences of opinion within the church over various matters and then there have been heresies that had to be confronted and rooted out. Today is not different.

Who is arguing that God has left us alone? I am not. He has sent us the Holy Spirit to dwell in us and guide us and teach us as it says in John 14. It is the anointing of the Holy Spirit, not the teaching of man, that has taught us to “abide in Him” (1 John 2:27).

Who is arguing the absence of a teaching office? I am not. The argument is over what kind of teaching office has been established by God’s Word:

11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. 15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love. (Ephesians 4)

The goal of every Christian should be that we attain the unity of the faith, but just because we have not achieved perfect unity does not mean there can be no true church at this time. It simply means we all have more maturing to do.

No. We have to stop being stubborn and listen to Authority with Love. It’s not about maturity.


The office given to Peter by Christ, and continually occupied by succession in the See where Peter was believed to preside and suffer martydom.

It relies on two things:

1.) Peter presiding in Rome, and dying there.

2.) A line of ordained Bishops to this office.

OR: Is this not a factor in salvation’s path?

How do you mean “factor”?

I’m Catholic. The Catholic Church is the HISTORICAL Christian Church

Nicely done. Thanks! *nnn

I’m trying now as a Catholic to better understand your mindset.

So am I correct that you don’t feel that “Truth” has to be singular per defined issue? Or is it that “truth” is not relevant to this discussion? Or that “One” church [and only Only true church…Mt .15:18], was Christ intent?

Can their be more than a single truth per defined issue was the object of the POST.

I’m trying hard not to be closed minded about the issue, and felt it to be a topic suitable of discussion

God Bless you,

THANKS so much for your response:)

I had hoped to be able to discuss the issue without seeming to “argue.” However I can see that this is at best unlikely?

How do you explain these realities?

Unless the term CHURCH" chosen precisely by Jesus does not have the meaning that we Catholics apply to it, meaning I suppose only the building and NOT what we hold it to include, namely. the FAITH beliefs of that community.

Pagans would have their Temples
Jews their Synagogues
Catholic-Christians their Church

Mt [18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

The Catholic position is founded on the fact that we see “Church” and the Faith beliefs of that community as being inseparable

And nowhere in the Bible that I can find, where did GOD; Yahweh or Jesus ever indicate even the slightest approval of competing faith beliefs and practices ever being acceptable, or approved by them.

The older I get the more confused I get about .the justification of more than a single set of God desired, faith beliefs. How can this be explained?. .

HOW is it possible to be “part of that one true church”; and yet hold to vastly differing faith beliefs? [Meaning Doctrines and Dogmas, not practices]?

God Bless you friend!


Appreciate your post!

God Bless you,



BUT what does it mean to be “a better Christian”?

AND does truth have any role in this?

God Bless you,


Hi Susan.

Point understood, however, we shouldn’t try and separate God from His Church ACTS 9:4

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.