How can a denomination be sure that their beliefs is the one that's correct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lexzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lexzar…

The first thing you need to understand is the world the people who wrote various books collected into what we call ‘the Bible’. You are looking at the Bible with 21st century, post Enlightenment, post printing press eyes.
In order to understand the ancient world, we have to step out of our comfort zones and walk in their shoes.
Many times that means accepting things our age rejects. Other times we can see how fragile our ‘modern’ society is. Without our gagets and toys, we are no different than they were.
Even in parts of the world today family structure is the bedrock of the culture. Things like covenants still exist in what we so arrogantly call the ‘third world’. African and native American tribes had no written language, yet they were steeped in the history of thier culture far more than our so-called ‘enlightened’ society.
I say all this because I suspect you are looking at these ancient people, as I used to, through 21st century western eyes. That is a grave error. Because we are far from being superior.
Not everything was ‘on paper’. It was timely and sometimes expensive to do that. It was a society far more steeped in oral tradition, and that included pagan societies as well. They had great auditory skills in those days.
Communication was by listening. Even when something was put on paper. it was read ALOUD. Reading to oneself was almost unknown.
Repitition helped people remember. Look up some time the story of how Isaac got his wife in Genesis. The story is repeated three times.
Many Protestants assume if it is not in written form (a concept that did not arise until the post-printing press days of the Enlightenment) it must be discarded. Our anscestors would have laughed themselves silly at such a thought.
Civilizations have existed for years on oral history alone. Many ancient civilizations have no written history, all they have is oral.
So…should we discard what they say because no one tribe decided to sit down and write a book? Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would bring all things to our remembrance. He did, and in due time, the Apostles wrote it down.
 
Lexzar, I hope this helps as well…

One of the reasons I put together a timeline and deliberately set it within a 100 year period between the Resurrection of Christ to Justin Martyr (roughly 130 AD) was to show this consistancy of doctrine and practice.
Say someone comes along and says “soldiers in World War 2 fought with laser guns and the Germans won the war”. How do we know this person is wrong? Because there are people still alive to remember the events and can say “no, here is how it happened…” That was only 70 years ago, we are talking 2000 years ago! So what do we do? Rely on someone 2000 years away and apart from the events?
Or do we take it from the horse’s mouth? Lets let those Christians who lived within that 100 years talk.
And I encourage you to read the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

I do not claim this timeline to be exact, but its pretty close. I’ve included the extant non-NT writings interspred within the century.

c. 30-33 - The death and resurrection of Jesus
c. 35 - The conversion of Paul
40s or 50s - James
c. 45-49 - Paul’s first missionary journey
Sometime between 48 and 58 - Paul writes Galatians **
c. 50-53 - Paul’s second missionary journey
50s - Paul writes Titus
50s or 60s - Mark written (based on oral tradition set down by Peter).
50s or 60s - Matthew written
51 - Paul writes 1 and 2 Thessalonians
c. 53-57 - Paul’s third missionary journey
Spring of 55 - Paul writes 1 Corinthians
56 - Paul writes 2 Corinthians
c. 57 - Paul writes Romans
c. 60 - Paul writes Colossians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes
Philemon**, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Ephesians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 61 - Paul writes Philippians, while in prison in Rome
Early 60s - Luke written
c. 60-70 - The Didache is written.
c. 62 - Paul is free
c. 62-64 - Luke writes Acts
c. 62-64 - Paul writes 1 Timothy
July 18-19, 64 - The Great Fire of Rome. Emperor Nero blamed the Christians, and a great persecution ensued.
Mid 60s - 1 Peter written
c. 64-68 - Paul writes 2 Timothy from prison
c. 67-68 - 2 Peter
c. 68 - Hebrews is written
June 9, 68 - The death of Nero. Sometime between the Great Fire of Rome and the death of Nero, both Peter and Paul were martyred.
c. 69 - Jude
70 - The Seige of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple
c. 70-80- The Epistle of Barnabus is written.
c. 85 - John written
Late First Century - **1, 2, and 3 John **
95- ***The Epistle of Clement ***is written…
c. 95-96 - John writes **Revelation **
c. 60-120- The writings of Papias (only fragments remain).
c. 105- The Epistles of Ignatius are written as he heads for Rome for execution.
c. 105-125- The Epistle of Polycarp is written.
c. 125-130- The Letter to Diognetus is written.
c. 125-130- The Epistle of Aristides is written.
c. 130- The Martyrdom of Polycarp is written.
c. 130-150- The Shepherd of Hermas is written.
c.100-165- The writings of Justin Martyr, much of it written in the 130s.

And this is just the first 100 years.
Read it for yourself.
 
Truthfully no one can be 100% sure because it takes faith to even begin to believe you know. Even for Catholics it seems they first must have faith in a Creator. Then faith in the NT story of Christ. Then faith in the Catholic Church’s interpretation of Herself and of Scripture, faith in Her interpretaion of the ECFs and of history. Faith in Jesus never having needed nor needing to reform His Church along the way so the gates do not prevail. That’s a lot of faith steps taken before they get to the point of believing they know. That’s why regardless of which faith it is, they’re all called faiths. God blessings and peace to you and each of us along our faith journeys.
 
Since some verses in the Bible aren’t to be taken literally, every denomination has their own interpretation of them. Now, how can one (in this case the catholic church) be sure that what they believe is the right one. (I’m currently not a part of a certain denomination)
I don’t know that you’ll ever find a group or denomination that will satisfy your search if you are looking for cetainty This Side. Each group has it’s understanding on many issues…some of which to each adherant is of utmost importance because that single point of “uniquness” in their tradition has made a very profound impact on them and their faith walk.

Catholics make much of their history, yet thousands and thousands and thousands have examined their historical claims and have found them lacking and not as compelling as they themselves claim.

The Orthodox share the first 1000 years of history with them…but unification among those claiming to receive their beliefs from the succession of the apostles thru the bishops wasn’t enough to keep them together.

I am a Friend because in the Society of Friends I have been presented with a “tool box” of sorts to “work out my own salvation”…and it is a weighty responsibility to determine how my faith impacts not only my life, but how I am to live my life with others in mind. It’s not just “personal salvation” we are to seek, but “corporate salvation” as well. And being a Friend has given me the direction to look toward.

Bottom line, whether one is Catholic, Mormon, Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Nazarene, Friend, Mennonite, “Non-denominational”, it is a matter of faith…how does the faith you embrace satisfy your life…how does the faith you embrace seek to make the world you live in a better place. How does the faith you embrace call you to “be in Christ” and “put on Christ” in the immediate influence you as an ambassador of the Kingdom of God can make?

It’s not the denomination that you need to be “sure of”…it’s the God that reveals Himself in Jesus of Nazareth that you need to be sure of. It is He and He alone that can satisfy the longing in your heart…if your heart is not satisfied by Him, it won’t matter who’s name is on the sign in front of the meeting house you attend for worship.
 
I don’t know that you’ll ever find a group or denomination that will satisfy your search if you are looking for cetainty This Side. Each group has it’s understanding on many issues…some of which to each adherant is of utmost importance because that single point of “uniquness” in their tradition has made a very profound impact on them and their faith walk.

Catholics make much of their history, yet thousands and thousands and thousands have examined their historical claims and have found them lacking and not as compelling as they themselves claim.

The Orthodox share the first 1000 years of history with them…but unification among those claiming to receive their beliefs from the succession of the apostles thru the bishops wasn’t enough to keep them together.

I am a Friend because in the Society of Friends I have been presented with a “tool box” of sorts to “work out my own salvation”…and it is a weighty responsibility to determine how my faith impacts not only my life, but how I am to live my life with others in mind. It’s not just “personal salvation” we are to seek, but “corporate salvation” as well. And being a Friend has given me the direction to look toward.

Bottom line, whether one is Catholic, Mormon, Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Nazarene, Friend, Mennonite, “Non-denominational”, it is a matter of faith…how does the faith you embrace satisfy your life…how does the faith you embrace seek to make the world you live in a better place. How does the faith you embrace call you to “be in Christ” and “put on Christ” in the immediate influence you as an ambassador of the Kingdom of God can make?

It’s not the denomination that you need to be “sure of”…it’s the God that reveals Himself in Jesus of Nazareth that you need to be sure of. It is He and He alone that can satisfy the longing in your heart…if your heart is not satisfied by Him, it won’t matter who’s name is on the sign in front of the meeting house you attend for worship.
Well said Publisher.
 
Catholics make much of their history, yet thousands and thousands and thousands have examined their historical claims and have found them lacking and not as compelling as they themselves claim…
If I may ask, which historical claims fall into this category? just a heads up, im not Catholic. But I do find the majority of their historical claims to be true.
 
If I may ask, which historical claims fall into this category? just a heads up, im not Catholic. But I do find the majority of their historical claims to be true.
If I may ask, if you find their claims to be true, why are you not Catholic? Are you young and for family reasons or some other reason you have to wait? Or is it because you find a majority true but not all?
 
a Christian with no identity is a painful and awkward place to be.
I want to be HIS, and HIS [Christ’s] alone.
(this sheep is wandering, and she hopes her shepherd will soon find her and lead her back to green pastures.)
Hi Crimsonglory, Jesus said He would build His> Church> singular; on St.Peter,now residing in the chair of St.Peter, in succession of others is the current Pope. The Spirit has led you to the right place; welcome to CAF.

May God lead you and Bless you with knowledge of the Catholic Church.
onenow1:)
 
If I may ask, which historical claims fall into this category? just a heads up, im not Catholic. But I do find the majority of their historical claims to be true.
If you’re interested in examing a more “secualar” historical development of early Christianity there are numerous books very informative and readable. An alternate history rather than the more “faith affirming” history as presented by believers gives, in my opinion a more credible history on the developmen of Christianity.

“The Reluctant Parting” by Julie Galambush

“Pre-Nicene New Testament” by Robert Price

“Lost Christianities” and “Lost Scriptures” by Bart Erhman

“Gnostic Gospels” by Elaine Pagels

“The Birth of Christianity” by John Dominic Crossan

“Who Wrote the New Testament” by Burton Mack

“Heresies” by Joan O’Grady

All great reads that offer an “alternative” view of the rise of Christianity.

If you are satisfied with the claims of the church and find it’s history compelling, none of these books will interest you. For me, they answered a lot of questions I had to my satisfaction.
 
As a Protestant I was always taught that the Holy Spirit will “give you what you need to interpret the Bible correctly.” But invariably I would come to different conclusions from others I knew, and vice versa, and of course across “denominations” there are wild disagreements. So–if we assume that Christianity is not some sort of sham and that we are not being visited personally by visions of God/Mary/some saint–logically, there are only three possible conclusions:
  1. The Holy Spirit doesn’t know what He is talking about and is an ignorant imbecile. (false)
  2. The Holy Spirit is a liar. (false)
  3. Particular individuals in fact do not have the right to definitively interpret scripture on their own, and must rely on an authoritative outside source.
The first two are obviously falsities. I cannot come to any other possible logical solutions, and so I must accept that the third is the only truth. Since Protestant ministers of all stripes have no historical claim to true and valid Orders (apostolic succession), and considering that Protestantism is ostensibly a dissident movement whose identity is to be not Catholic, their rightful mother religion, I cannot trust them whatsoever.

Protestants cannot overcome with any veracity the fact that the Holy Spirit does not, in fact, give us “everything we need to interpret the Bible,” as I was taught.

Another thought…

I can accept no religion whose identity it is to not be another religion. It is like a “negative identity,” if you will. How can a religious movement (such as Protestantism) have any validity when its whole base is not being another religion. That is like someone asking you what you do for a living and you say, “I am not a firefighter!” How silly!
 
Hi Crimsonglory, Jesus said He would build His> Church> singular; on St.Peter,now residing in the chair of St.Peter, in succession of others is the current Pope. The Spirit has led you to the right place; welcome to CAF.

May God lead you and Bless you with knowledge of the Catholic Church.
onenow1:)
Onenow, surely you know other Christians interpret that Jesus built His Church on the words of Peter, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” God’s blessings and peace to along your faith journey.
 
As a Protestant I was always taught that the Holy Spirit will “give you what you need to interpret the Bible correctly.” But invariably I would come to different conclusions from others I knew, and vice versa, and of course across “denominations” there are wild disagreements. So–if we assume that Christianity is not some sort of sham and that we are not being visited personally by visions of God/Mary/some saint–logically, there are only three possible conclusions:
  1. The Holy Spirit doesn’t know what He is talking about and is an ignorant imbecile. (false)
  2. The Holy Spirit is a liar. (false)
  3. Particular individuals in fact do not have the right to definitively interpret scripture on their own, and must rely on an authoritative outside source.
The first two are obviously falsities. I cannot come to any other possible logical solutions, and so I must accept that the third is the only truth. Since Protestant ministers of all stripes have no historical claim to true and valid Orders (apostolic succession), and considering that Protestantism is ostensibly a dissident movement whose identity is to be not Catholic, their rightful mother religion, I cannot trust them whatsoever.

Protestants cannot overcome with any veracity the fact that the Holy Spirit does not, in fact, give us “everything we need to interpret the Bible,” as I was taught.

Another thought…

I can accept no religion whose identity it is to not be another religion. It is like a “negative identity,” if you will. How can a religious movement (such as Protestantism) have any validity when its whole base is not being another religion. That is like someone asking you what you do for a living and you say, “I am not a firefighter!” How silly!
Are you saying because people claim to be "Protestant’ they are involved in “protesting” something? Of course you realize that “Protestant” never was used in the sense of “protesting the Catholic church”…don’t you? 🙂
 
Hi Crimsonglory, Jesus said He would build His> Church> singular; on St.Peter,now residing in the chair of St.Peter, in succession of others is the current Pope. The Spirit has led you to the right place; welcome to CAF.

May God lead you and Bless you with knowledge of the Catholic Church.
onenow1:)
And of course the “other apostolic” churches don’t understand Jesus statement as recorded in the gospels in the same way your “apostolic” church does…so one of the "apostolic’ groups which can trace it’s roots to the apostles is wrong…all can’t trace their teaching to the apostles and be right…can they?
 
If I may ask, which historical claims fall into this category? just a heads up, im not Catholic. But I do find the majority of their historical claims to be true.
Friend, if you don’t want to examine “secular history”…you could always chose to examine the various histories out there of a more religious nature…say between the “apostolic” churches…Orthodox vs Catholic or Catholic vs Coptic or such…interesting that all these “true churches” present different histories on significant points that keep them separate and distinct “denominations” of apostolic traditions.

Being “decended directly from the apostles” doesn’t guarantee “one history”. or “one faith”…and in some cases, not even 'one baptism".🙂
 
Onenow, surely you know other Christians interpret that Jesus built His Church on the words of Peter, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” God’s blessings and peace to along your faith journey.
Matt 👍 And surely you know, He gave the keys to the kingdom to St.Peter,> singular. May I remind you St.Peters words reach us even today through the Spirit,from Jesus,in the chair of Peter.🙂

God Bless
 
If I may ask, if you find their claims to be true, why are you not Catholic? Are you young and for family reasons or some other reason you have to wait? Or is it because you find a majority true but not all?
Both. Im 22 years old and I was raised in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian church (about as calvinistic as it gets). I also have an aunt who is Catholic that wont speak to mother anymore for issues she wont explain and my Mom blaims the Catholic church for a lot of it (which i find ridiculous. its not the church’s fault when someone isn’t charitable). Recently ive been going to anglican church and my mother hates because she wants to be sitting in the pew next to her every sunday. Ive had long and horrible arguments about this and yet to bring up my interest in Catholocism b/c it will only make matters worse. Also I’m still not COMPLETELY sold on everything in the Catholic faith but at the moment all the questions that i’ve had concerning Catholicism have been answered in a biblical and historical way. Which is very convincing. I also have deep longing for a more mystical spiritual life with Christ, something that can’t be found in protestant churches IMO. A lot of thought and prayer has gone into this and hopefully one day I can find a spiritual home b/c its a quite exhausting search. At the moment its Orthodoxy and catholicism that seem to be the most likely if I can somehow get along with my extremely reformed family and friends.
 
Friend, if you don’t want to examine “secular history”…you could always chose to examine the various histories out there of a more religious nature…say between the “apostolic” churches…Orthodox vs Catholic or Catholic vs Coptic or such…interesting that all these “true churches” present different histories on significant points that keep them separate and distinct “denominations” of apostolic traditions.

Being “decended directly from the apostles” doesn’t guarantee “one history”. or “one faith”…and in some cases, not even 'one baptism".🙂
haha. O trust me I have. Take a look at my last post. thanks for the heads up though.
 
Listens to who?

To the Apostles…as the verse says…so know who is from God and who is not. …that is what 1John 4 is stressing…and how would you apply this verse today?

Would God not leave provisions, via the Apostles…to have successors?

From Clement of Rome, one those appointed by the Apostles himself…says…Clement of Rome writes this in his Epistle to Corinth…in accordance with the passages above…
earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html

1Clem 42:4 So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe.
1Clem 44:2 For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration.
57:1 Do ye, therefore, that have laid the foundation of the sedition submit yourselves to the presbyters, and be chastised to repentance, bending the knees of your hearts.

57:2 Learn to submit yourselves, laying aside the vain and haughty self-will of your tongues; for it is better that you should be small and approved in the flock of Christ, rather than that, seeming to be superior to others, ye should be cast out of his hope

59:1 But if some should be disobedient to the things spoken by him through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in no small transgression and danger,
Nowhere in the Bible did it mention a certain church, nor did it state anything that could prove a church to be the ‘‘Only True Church’’. Jesus said he will build his church on solid truth, He did not mention any specific tradition, names, or any similarity that could identify that church.
 
Originally Posted by Lexzar
Mmmm true, seek, and you will find. But I guess no one in this world who believes that there is a God would be wanting to go to hell right? That includes Muslims, Christians, etc. I’m pretty sure they also seek. But then again, no one can truly be sure which is right and which is wrong since we weren’t there when it all happened, and as I have said, there are verses that are not to be taken literally, so everyone could make their own interpretation. Let’s just wait 'till the end comes and see who truly is ‘‘the one who got it right’’.
Disagree my friend. If I truly seek CHRIST with all my heart, I believe I will find him and he will place me in His true visible church (if there is one). He said it, not me. If I don’t have faith than I have nothing.
Let me say onething…if you ask for courage from God…will he instantly zap you and you have instant courage? Or will He give you the oppurtunity to display courage and act courageously?

If you ask for patience, will He instantly zap you to give you instand patience? Or will He test your patience…so that you can exercise patience?

And with this in mind…truly seeking Christ and His church…He will show you the way…to His church…and I commend your humility in seeking this church.

Anyway…for your reading…and I hope this helps:

The 4 marks of the Church…star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m3/Mod3.html

The Splendor of the Church…star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m1/splndr.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top