Is the IFB the only true church?

[mattd]

That's not what Jesus said though. He said that the gates of Hell will NOT prevail against His church. If "His church" is LOCAL churches, then every single local church has to survive.

So if a good church shuts down then the Devil won? Does that mean that every church that shut down, anywhere and at any time in human history, was not one of Jesus' churches? What about churches in Communist countries where the whole congregation was killed or imprisoned and that local church ceased to exist?

If this verse is talking about ONE universal church consisting of ALL believers, then it is a perfect example of eternal security and how that no matter what happens - the gates of Hell will not prevail against the body of Christ.

What else could it be talking about. Of course, Jesus did not create more than one church. There is only one church, made up of several local congregations that practice the way.

[Covenanter]

Mt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

What do gates do? Keep people out, or keep people in.

The gates of hell cannot keep those Christ has redeemed under Satan's hold, nor can redeemed sinners be drawn into hell. Gates have no power - Christ has ALL power.

Mat 12:28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.

[JerryNumbers]

Mt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

That verse means what it says, if the Devil Shuts down, closes the doors, or you could say close the gate as the verse reads, in every single one of Jesus' churches at anyone time period, them the Devil has won. Jesus promised this would not happen.

So what constitutes one of Jesus' Churches, just look in the Bible, God says He has given us everything we need to be perfectly furnished to serve Him. So that has to mean that you can find out just what one of Jesus' Churches should be like, what they should be teaching, the doctrine they should hold to.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

And no, every church that says its of Jesus, is not of Jesus, if you believe that the Devil has already deceived you and if you can't figure out what constitutes one of Jesus' Churches its because you refuse to heed to the "Instruction Book" God has provided.

There be many, very many, deceived by the old Devil, of course, God said it would be that way, especially more so in the latter days. Remember, the gate is narrow, its very strait, few there be that enter in, yet that other gate is very broad, very wide, and many enter in at it.

Oh, I here someone saying, you cannot know if a church is really a true church or not. If you be correct, them God has lied to us in 2 Timothy 3:16,17, them the man of God cannot be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. He did not lie, we can know exactly what Jesus' church is like, what its suppose to teach, the doctrine it ought to proclaim.

We can know if we are saved, and we can know if we are members of one of Jesus true Churches.

I agree with the statement Covenanter made, the reason I believe it is because of the promise Jesus made, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, it being Jesus' Churches, that is he would not shut them down, they would always be in existence until He comes for His own, gathered together every local church into one church and took it to heaven.

[Seth Doty]

I am not convinced that when it says: "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" it is speaking of the church at all. I think it is most likely speaking of what Peter had just said: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." That truth is the rock, and that is what the gates of hell can't handle.

[mattd]

Mt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

That verse means what it says, if the Devil Shuts down, closes the doors, or you could say close the gate as the verse reads, in every single one of Jesus' churches at anyone time period, them the Devil has won. Jesus promised this would not happen.

So what constitutes one of Jesus' Churches, just look in the Bible, God says He has given us everything we need to be perfectly furnished to serve Him. So that has to mean that you can find out just what one of Jesus' Churches should be like, what they should be teaching, the doctrine they should hold to.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

And no, every church that says its of Jesus, is not of Jesus, if you believe that the Devil has already deceived you and if you can't figure out what constitutes one of Jesus' Churches its because you refuse to heed to the "Instruction Book" God has provided.

There be many, very many, deceived by the old Devil, of course, God said it would be that way, especially more so in the latter days. Remember, the gate is narrow, its very strait, few there be that enter in, yet that other gate is very broad, very wide, and many enter in at it.

Oh, I here someone saying, you cannot know if a church is really a true church or not. If you be correct, them God has lied to us in 2 Timothy 3:16,17, them the man of God cannot be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. He did not lie, we can know exactly what Jesus' church is like, what its suppose to teach, the doctrine it ought to proclaim.

We can know if we are saved, and we can know if we are members of one of Jesus true Churches.

I agree with the statement Covenanter made, the reason I believe it is because of the promise Jesus made, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, it being Jesus' Churches, that is he would not shut them down, they would always be in existence until He comes for His own, gathered together every local church into one church and took it to heaven.

God's "instruction book" says "church" not "churches." There is only one church, though there are many congregations.

[John81]

God's "instruction book" says "church" not "churches." There is only one church, though there are many congregations.

Revelation 1:11

11Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

[MatthewDiscipleOfGod]

Revelation 1:11

11Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

Don't forget:


Acts 9:31
Then had the churches rest throughout all Judand Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.

Acts 15:41
And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.

Romans 16:4
Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.


There are 37 times churches is used in the New Testament. Edited March 16, 2011 by MatthewDiscipleOfGod

[JerryNumbers]

God's "instruction book" says "church" not "churches." There is only one church, though there are many congregations.

Search the Bible for churches, see how many times it comes up, especially after about Acts 10 to 16. And be sure to notice context of the way churches is used.

It started out one Church, the Church Jesus started at Jerusalem, in fact Jesus gave the church at Jerusalem instructions to start new churches, many churches do this today start new churches when the need comes up, they will send out people in the same way some of the early churches did. After a point in Acts, the tone changes, and its about churches, local churches, and each local church is a church of its own. Each local church has its own pastor. And when one is saved, them baptized, they become a member of that church, not a universal church, for there is no universal church, universal church is teachings of the RCC. They teach there is one church, the Catholic Church and its headquarters is the Vatican City, and the head of it is the pope.

By the way, the true local churches has only one head, its Christ, Christ did not give up the head of His church to the pope, Jesus is still the head of His churches.

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the Savior of the body.


Even in Revelation Jesus makes this distinction, and Jesus address the pastor of each local church.

And as I said before, when Jesus comes, He will gather together all of His local churches, into one church, them they will forever be one.

I've given a few pointers. Study the Bible out, its all in there for anyone that cares to find it.

[Annie]

Sigh...There is indeed "the church"....Eph. 5: Christ is the head of "the church"...He gave himself for "the church"...Acts 2: He added to "the church"...I Cor. 12: He sets up leaders in "the church"...I Cor 15; Gal 1:13; Phil. 3:6: Paul persecuted "the church of God"...Eph 1:22; Col 1:18: Christ is the head of "the church"...The Lord loves "the church"ETC. There are many more references to a general "church" (not limited to a local assembly of believers). The idea that the term church cannot be used generally to describe "believers everywhere" is anti-biblical, since Scripture obviously uses it in such a way.

There are also many references to local assemblies...local churches. I'm not sure why this is a point to get hung up on. There is "the church" (universal body of believers of which Christ is the head), and there are churches (local expressions of the universal body of believers). I think it's pretty simple to understand, but I might be missing something. :puzzled3:

[JerryNumbers]

The overlooking of so much in order to believe and follow the teachings of the RCC . Here is some study guides on the subject, that can be a big help, if one will take them along with their Bible, and rightly study them out wit the help of the Holy Spirit while letting go of the RCC's teachings.

The Church

[mattd]

Sigh...There is indeed "the church"....Eph. 5: Christ is the head of "the church"...He gave himself for "the church"...Acts 2: He added to "the church"...I Cor. 12: He sets up leaders in "the church"...I Cor 15; Gal 1:13; Phil. 3:6: Paul persecuted "the church of God"...Eph 1:22; Col 1:18: Christ is the head of "the church"...The Lord loves "the church"ETC. There are many more references to a general "church" (not limited to a local assembly of believers). The idea that the term church cannot be used generally to describe "believers everywhere" is anti-biblical, since Scripture obviously uses it in such a way.

There are also many references to local assemblies...local churches. I'm not sure why this is a point to get hung up on. There is "the church" (universal body of believers of which Christ is the head), and there are churches (local expressions of the universal body of believers). I think it's pretty simple to understand, but I might be missing something.

This is exactly what I was saying. In context, it is obvious that there is only one church, which is made up of the universal brotherhood of all faithful believers, who in turn are gathered together in local congregations. In the BIble, those local congregations took all their ecclesiastical instructions from a single group of leaders (mostly Paul). It appears that some are struggling with the terminology that is used. When Christ says "my church" he is obviously not talking about a building or a particular gathering. If he were, that building or gathering would still be alive and recognizable today and all other local assemblies would be in tune with it. In context, he is speaking of the faith itself. When the word "churches" is used, it would appear that the writer is referencing the local assemblies of persons who practiced Christ's faith. However, I disagree that these were "different" churches in the manner some are suggesting. They shared one faith, not many. And although they would have had their own bishops and deacons carrying out the administrative functions of their local assemblies, they were all obviously under the spiritual authority of Paul and the other apostles, not some other individual which the themselves selected.

I didn't even insinuate that the RCC had anything to do with it. Believing in one church, of which Christ is the head, is not RCC, it's BIble.

[irishman]

It has been awhile since I replied--had computer trouble, but, as I have read over many of these responses, I see some real frustration at explaining the true church as a local body. let me say that when something is made up of one body, we need not pluralize it by adding an "s" to it. That is just plain good English. Is the foot the same place as the head? Are the fingers sticking out of the ears? No, they are not, yet we are one body.
Some are saying that it doesn't matter, but it must have mattered to Christ, He died for the church too! To which church did he refer in Matt. 18 for discipline? Or when he told Peter that He would build His church upon the Rock, in Matt. 16, to which church did He refer? "The Church" consists of a number of local churches.

An invisible church must have a shepherd--is he invisible too? The so-called invisible church must have ordinances, are they practiced by invisible members? It is absurd to think such a thing, and yet many do, as I read these posts. The "qualifications" of a church (if you will spare me them) are not met, neither can be met in a universal, invisible church.

As for the church falling, the scriptures remain true, the church (in general) cannot fall. To say that if one church failed when another thrived is comparing a lot of factors that enter into the picture. Churches usually fall from poor leadership, and not from anything biblical or any special Satanic attacks against it. Let's be true to the word, and not merely trying to win an argument, and let the scriptures reveal their truths.

[JerryNumbers]

This is exactly what I was saying. In context, it is obvious that there is only one church, which is made up of the universal brotherhood of all faithful believers, who in turn are gathered together in local congregations. In the BIble, those local congregations took all their ecclesiastical instructions from a single group of leaders (mostly Paul). It appears that some are struggling with the terminology that is used. When Christ says "my church" he is obviously not talking about a building or a particular gathering. If he were, that building or gathering would still be alive and recognizable today and all other local assemblies would be in tune with it. In context, he is speaking of the faith itself. When the word "churches" is used, it would appear that the writer is referencing the local assemblies of persons who practiced Christ's faith. However, I disagree that these were "different" churches in the manner some are suggesting. They shared one faith, not many. And although they would have had their own bishops and deacons carrying out the administrative functions of their local assemblies, they were all obviously under the spiritual authority of Paul and the other apostles, not some other individual which the themselves selected.

I didn't even insinuate that the RCC had anything to do with it. Believing in one church, of which Christ is the head, is not RCC, it's BIble.

You do not have to insinuate that, for they be the man made church that coined the term, invisible universal church of which your accepting, and helping spread.

[Annie]

It has been awhile since I replied--had computer trouble, but, as I have read over many of these responses, I see some real frustration at explaining the true church as a local body. let me say that when something is made up of one body, we need not pluralize it by adding an "s" to it. That is just plain good English. Is the foot the same place as the head? Are the fingers sticking out of the ears? No, they are not, yet we are one body.
Some are saying that it doesn't matter, but it must have mattered to Christ, He died for the church too! To which church did he refer in Matt. 18 for discipline? Or when he told Peter that He would build His church upon the Rock, in Matt. 16, to which church did He refer? "The Church" consists of a number of local churches.

An invisible church must have a shepherd--is he invisible too? The so-called invisible church must have ordinances, are they practiced by invisible members? It is absurd to think such a thing, and yet many do, as I read these posts. The "qualifications" of a church (if you will spare me them) are not met, neither can be met in a universal, invisible church.

As for the church falling, the scriptures remain true, the church (in general) cannot fall. To say that if one church failed when another thrived is comparing a lot of factors that enter into the picture. Churches usually fall from poor leadership, and not from anything biblical or any special Satanic attacks against it. Let's be true to the word, and not merely trying to win an argument, and let the scriptures reveal their truths.

Irishman, it would be helpful if you'd address the Scriptures I listed which talk of "the church." As in, "Christ is the head of the church"...and, "Paul persecuted the church," and, "the Lord loves the church." The Bible indeed does add an "E-S" onto the end of "church" when speaking of individual, local bodies in the plural. And, there are singular usages of the word "church" which are obviously referring to local bodies as well. But I don't see how you can deny that the word "church" is used in a general sense as well...in a sense that does NOT denote a specific local body of believers, but many bodies of believers. Can you address the Scripture?

You ask if the shepherd of the "invisible church" is invisible as well. I think the answer is obvious: yes He is, at least right now. Christ is the head of "the church," the "good shepherd."

Irishman, I have no reason to "want" the word "church" to mean anything other than what Scripture indicates it means. I think it is clear that "church" can be used in both a general and specific sense. Edited March 16, 2011 by Annie

[Brother Rick]

Sigh...

My sentiments exactly, sister.

There is indeed "the church"....Eph. 5: Christ is the head of "the church"...He gave himself for "the church"...Acts 2: He added to "the church"...I Cor. 12: He sets up leaders in "the church"...I Cor 15; Gal 1:13; Phil. 3:6: Paul persecuted "the church of God"...Eph 1:22; Col 1:18: Christ is the head of "the church"...The Lord loves "the church"ETC. There are many more references to a general "church" (not limited to a local assembly of believers). The idea that the term church cannot be used generally to describe "believers everywhere" is anti-biblical, since Scripture obviously uses it in such a way.

There are also many references to local assemblies...local churches. I'm not sure why this is a point to get hung up on. There is "the church" (universal body of believers of which Christ is the head), and there are churches (local expressions of the universal body of believers). I think it's pretty simple to understand, but I might be missing something.

You're not missing anything, you've nailed it.

The problem is, instead of going with what the Bible clearly teaches, folks would rather stick with their tradition of thinking they're "the one true church." It's so ironic, while claiming that the doctrine of a universal church is Catholic, they've actually adopted the Catholic doctrine themselves. No denomination or sub-denomination is the "one true church."

I think, er, I hope that what is at the root of this is terminology. The hang-up is the word, "universal." Use that word and you're a Catholic all of a sudden. Ignatius, in 106 A.D., was the first to use the word "Catholic," but he didn't mean it like we do - he meant universal like we use it today.

So, I may use the term "universal church" - but I don't believe the Catholic doctrine that my church or denomination is the only true church. Baptist Briders refuse to use the term "universal church" - but they believe that only their brand of Baptists are the true church(es) of Jesus, which is exactly what the Catholics teach.

Which is worse? Edited March 16, 2011 by Rick Schworer