Protestants: How do you determine which denomination holds the truth?

[cmodrmac]

**THE TRUTH OF WHAT PARTICULARLY?

you can refer to the truth of : Christology - Liturgy -the Sacraments -organizational structure- proper interpretation of Scripture-understanding of Grace-the afterlife?

Just because a denomination takes a long time to change any dogma does not particularly render them the “Guardian of the Truth”

Did not the Reformation affirm certain truths (Priesthood of all believers)-the scriptures are to be read by all et al -

We believe that all Churches are doing God’s work and “the Truth” does not just exist in one particular denomination

If you do read Elaine Pagels or Crossan or Erhman it makes one think about what really is the “truth”

**

 

[dronald]

Of course it’s not just Protestants.

The topic is not about disagreeing.

It is about foundation.

I can go tomorrow and make my own church, call it what I want and become my own leader of a new denomination.

What gives me the authority to do that and to teach people what the Bible means.

To be honest Jon, your thread is not unique so I don’t know exactly what you want it to be about.

We’ve gone through history and began discussing some of it, and now you’re asking a hypothetical question. Well let me tell you, when you’re feeding the hungry in Africa or hiding in underground Church’s in Pakistan your hypothetical doesn’t sound like such a bad idea.

You’re looking at things from a very modern view where Christianity dominates. There’s no sense in me opening a new Church in Alabama or Rome lest I should build on another’s foundation; but some days when I’m feeling spiritual I want to open one in the ghetto, or fly somewhere that my Religion is not wanted.

Every time I see the souls coming to Christ where it’s not okay, I guarantee I’m not thinking “How do I know which denomination is the right one.”

 

[Jon_S_1]

**THE TRUTH OF WHAT PARTICULARLY?

you can refer to the truth of : Christology - Liturgy -the Sacraments -organizational structure- proper interpretation of Scripture-understanding of Grace-the afterlife?

Just because a denomination takes a long time to change any dogma does not particularly render them the “Guardian of the Truth”

Did not the Reformation affirm certain truths (Priesthood of all believers)-the scriptures are to be read by all et al -

We believe that all Churches are doing God’s work and “the Truth” does not just exist in one particular denomination

If you do read Elaine Pagels or Crossan or Erhman it makes one think about what really is the “truth”

**

I don’t think anyone is denying that all these denominations hold some truth.

But where is the Fullness of revealed truth?

With a church I could start tomorrow that denies the Trinity and reinstitutes the Old Testament animal sacrifices based on my interpretation?

Or with John Weskeys, or Calvin or Luther or Mark Driscoll?? Joel Olsteen?

If you say yes to one of those, then I ask for evidence to support why they discovered or rediscovered the Fullness of Christian Truth and why God allowed that truth to be lost until they came along despite scripture declaring otherwise.

See, Protestants take a book compiled to aid the teaching of the Church and they remove it from it’s context and it’s church and create their own church.

It’s as if I took the Koran and said, Muslims have had it wrong for all these years, here is what it really means come and join my New Reformed Islamic Church.

You only think it is right because it is the tradition your in, but I can’t imagine how someone cannot step aside of their bias to view it objectively and see the inherent problems with that.

 

[Matthew_Light]

Every time I see the souls coming to Christ where it’s not okay, I guarantee I’m not thinking “How do I know which denomination is the right one.”

 

[Nicea325]

It is because of history that I remain a Friend.

I do not find the faith affirming history of the Catholic church to be compelling. When the “darker side” of Christian history is examined one finds a very different view.

While the ECF’s present what the proto-Orthodox/Catholic churches believed and practiced, they were also pretty “loose” with their “facts” when they wrote about other traditions they perceived to be “heretical”…not ALL ECF’s took this road, many did.

Bart Erhman’s “Lost Christianities” and “Lost Scriptures” present I believe a more fact based history of early Christianity.

Now I’ve been a Friend for over 35 years, so I obviously couldn’t have made my decisions when I was 19 thru reading Erhman…he just confirmed what I had come to understand.

I don’t believe my own tradition is “the True Church” …nor do I believe any organization hola a monopoly on Truth. I made my choice based on the character of Jesus and what he came to do. He did not come to free us from one set of rituals and rites to only burden us with a new set.

He alone is Priest. I could not be Catholic/Orthodox/Mormon/Lutheran/ Anglican or any body that requires me to undergo a ritual done by someone else to or for me in order to share in His Life. If another man is required to perform a ritual for or to me, that places them in between me and God…/and I need no ones "intervention " to make sure the right words or right gestures are done in order for me to approach God.

That’s pretty much it in a nut shell. Christ and He alone has made the Way open.

My friend, no offense,but you have been duped by false information or simply have a poor understanding. Why on earth would a “new” ritual under the new covenant be a burden? I never knew Jesus intended baptism to be a burden?

Second of all, going through a ritual by someone was never and is not meant to hinder you from sharing God’s life. On the contrary, they meant to bring you closer in sharing His graces. One who has a higher education evidently went through some “ritual” via another person or persons to get what they were seeking. It is not a burden,but a required process.

As for intervention? What makes you believe Christ Church is an obstacle?

 

[Jon_S_1]

To be honest Jon, your thread is not unique so I don’t know exactly what you want it to be about.

We’ve gone through history and began discussing some of it, and now you’re asking a hypothetical question. Well let me tell you, when you’re feeding the hungry in Africa or hiding in underground Church’s in Pakistan your hypothetical doesn’t sound like such a bad idea.

You’re looking at things from a very modern view where Christianity dominates. There’s no sense in me opening a new Church in Alabama or Rome lest I should build on another’s foundation; but some days when I’m feeling spiritual I want to open one in the ghetto, or fly somewhere that my Religion is not wanted.

Every time I see the souls coming to Christ where it’s not okay, I guarantee I’m not thinking “How do I know which denomination is the right one.”

This sounds wonderful dronald. Well said. And there is absolutely ZERO reason that can’t be done within the "walls " of the ONE church.

By your reasoning it makes no difference if a Hindu, Muslim, deist, Mormon, or anyone else opens that church in the ghetto because doctrine is secondary to “souls coming to God”. You don’t understand that no one can agree on what “coming to Christ” actually definitively means without the foundation of the church.

 

[dronald]

This sounds wonderful dronald. Well said. And there is absolutely ZERO reason that can’t be done within the "walls " of the ONE church.

It is done in one Church.

A example is when Apollos was allowed to preach Christianity:

"24 Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures.

25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, { Or b in the Spirit b } he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.

26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

27 And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed,

28 for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus."

He was able to speak accurately concerning Jesus without knowing all there was, including Baptism. I think it right for him to ask the Apostles who have left us their Scriptures for help; and those who knew the Apostles best.

We can teach accurately about Jesus without having little disputes about what I believe turns into nonsense.

By your reasoning it makes no difference if a Hindu, Muslim, deist, Mormon, or anyone else opens that church in the ghetto because doctrine is secondary to “souls coming to God”. You don’t understand that no one can agree on what “coming to Christ” actually definitively means without the foundation of the church.

The thing that all Catholics, Orthodox and Protestant Church’s hold true to is that we are Christians. The Divinity of Christ and the truth of Salvation through Him brings us into His Church.

Now, I’m gonna throw a curve ball here and also admit the main thing that binds us three are the Scriptures. As soon as one falls outside of Scripture (by adding, changing or removing words) they can no longer preach Christ. That’s not to say that someone needs a Bible to know what’s therein, rather if one amends any of it, believes it and preaches it then one is automatically preaching a false Gospel.

 

[powerofk]

Great answers, and great discussion, guys!

Honestly, though, the thing that really confuses me is this: why are some Protestants so anti-Catholic yet claim that the only authority lies in a book whose canon was decided by the Catholic Church - Who, by the way, decided the canon based on presumed authenticity and orthodoxy of message? In other words, the Catholic Church decided the canon based partially on how well the individual books and letters matched the teachings that had been handed down by Tradition up until that time and whether they believed whether the writings were actually written by the apostles or the “disciples of the apostles”. The question I would ask here of Protestants is - if the Protestant Reformation had happened before the decision on the canon of scripture (or not long after such decision), how would you decide which of the multitude of individual books and letters claiming to be scriptural deserved to be in your version of the Bible?

 

[Per_Crucem]

I don’t see anything in there about Gods grace being withdrawn from the priest???

If the priest is now a layman, then clearly, the “grace” of being a priest is not present.

For a former priest in Orthodoxy to confect the Sacrament is not only illicit, there’s no sacrament present. The same goes for bishops. They have no concept of episcopi vagantes.

 

[dronald]

Great answers, and great discussion, guys!

Honestly, though, the thing that really confuses me is this: why are some Protestants so anti-Catholic yet claim that the only authority lies in a book whose canon was decided by the Catholic Church - Who, by the way, decided the canon based on presumed authenticity and orthodoxy of message? In other words, the Catholic Church decided the canon based partially on how well the individual books and letters matched the teachings that had been handed down by Tradition up until that time and whether they believed whether the writings were actually written by the apostles or the “disciples of the apostles”. The question I would ask here of Protestants is - if the Protestant Reformation had happened before the decision on the canon of scripture (or not long after such decision), how would you decide which of the multitude of individual books and letters claiming to be scriptural deserved to be in your version of the Bible?

This is a good question and an extremely common one.

We accept the books in the Bible because we know who wrote them and we trust them. Something odd can easily be detected by us now such as the gospel of Thomas. Also, early dating. We know all of the books were written during the time of the Apostles.

We have methods now too of confirming the historicity of the early books and reach the same conclusions that the early Church did.

Looking outside the lens of a Christian I can’t think of a book I would remove or a book I would add.

 

[benhur]

I don’t know what you are referring to here at all. The Greek Church has presbyteros, priest is English form.

Presbyter is the English form. Priest is not as definitive for now you have two totally different Greek words that it may represent. It reminds me of the inadequacies of the translation of “hell”, where it can be mean where the righteous and unrighteous go before Calvary and the place where only the evil go afterwards.

Your claim that “propitiatory sacrifices ended with OT” is unfounded.

That is your opinion, but maybe this thread may help you see it has “foundings”, just that you may disagree with them.

Christ is the perpetual propitiatory sacrifice. His Sacrifice of Himself is valid and perpetual until the Second Coming, when it is not ended, but even more fulfilled.

Perpetual sacrifice ? I believe it to be more definitive: it is ONE sacrifice, Once done but perpetual propitiation not perpetual sacrifice.
The continual sacrifice that never ends, even at His second coming and beyond is one of “true and spiritual praise and giving of thanks” . Sacrifice is what we give to God. Thanksgiving-Eucharisting is giving thanks for what God gave us.

 

[dronald]

Presbyter is the English form. Priest is not as definitive for now you have two totally different Greek words that it may represent. It reminds me of the inadequacies of the translation of “hell”, where it can be mean where the righteous and unrighteous go before Calvary and the place where only the evil go afterwards.

I’ve always found it fascinating that the word Eucharist is in the Bible, we just translate it all the way to English and leave it that way.

Another one I like (not in the Bible) is “Catholic.”

 

[Jon_S_1]

If the priest is now a layman, then clearly, the “grace” of being a priest is not present.

For a former priest in Orthodoxy to confect the Sacrament is not only illicit, there’s no sacrament present. The same goes for bishops. They have no concept of episcopi vagantes.

You just don’t understand Sacremental grace…I have tried and tried to explain it, but seeing as it is not part of your experience I am uncertain why you feel you are an expert in it.

 

[benhur]

Well I think I have a grasp of why Protestants become Catholic. At least for myself and in reading a number of conversions.

I suppose my question is more of how can any Protestant not become Catholic when seriously looking at history? With what grounding do you hold your interpretation (or denominations interpretation) of scripture and what it means to be a Christian?

I was wondering how genuine is your question, or at least as as posed by some. You see I think I understand CC reasoning from scripture, history and CC. I could never genuinely say show me your Catholic evidence as if there isn’t any, or that I haven’t seen it, and more importantly, that whatever I look at I can not put on “your shoes”. Why is it that I see your reasoning (evidences) and you not ours ? For example, to minister to JW’s it is helpful to learn what they believe and why (their reasoning /evidences). It would be disingenuous and fruitless even harmful to say they have no evidences/reasonings. Even St. Paul says, " I become all things to all men so that I may save some".

 

[Jon_S_1]

It is done in one Church.

A example is when Apollos was allowed to preach Christianity:

"24 Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures.

25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, { Or b in the Spirit b } he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.

26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

27 And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed,

28 for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus."

He was able to speak accurately concerning Jesus without knowing all there was, including Baptism. I think it right for him to ask the Apostles who have left us their Scriptures for help; and those who knew the Apostles best.

We can teach accurately about Jesus without having little disputes about what I believe turns into nonsense.

The thing that all Catholics, Orthodox and Protestant Church’s hold true to is that we are Christians. The Divinity of Christ and the truth of Salvation through Him brings us into His Church.

Now, I’m gonna throw a curve ball here and also admit the main thing that binds us three are the Scriptures. As soon as one falls outside of Scripture (by adding, changing or removing words) they can no longer preach Christ. That’s not to say that someone needs a Bible to know what’s therein, rather if one amends any of it, believes it and preaches it then one is automatically preaching a false Gospel.

Regarding Apollos, Is it your position that if Apollos had not been teaching accurately about Christ, that he would have been allowed to spread the erroneous teaching? If at least he was having people believe in Jesus and be baptized he was ok and the rest was inconsequential?

The key is he was teaching ACCURATELY! According to who?? Paul and the rest of the Apostles! THE CHURCH!!!

Second,

If the main thing that binds us is scripture, then how come we have different scripture? What bound Christians before Scripture?

 

[Jon_S_1]

I was wondering how genuine is your question, or at least as as posed by some. You see I think I understand CC reasoning from scripture, history and CC. I could never genuinely say show me your Catholic evidence as if there isn’t any, or that I haven’t seen it, and more importantly, that whatever I look at I can not put on “your shoes”. Why is it that I see your reasoning (evidences) and you not ours ? For example, to minister to JW’s it is helpful to learn what they believe and why (their reasoning /evidences). It would be disingenuous and fruitless even harmful to say they have no evidences/reasonings. Even St. Paul says, " I become all things to all men so that I may save some".

My question is genuine. I have examined and can find ZERO evidence without either relying on the teachings of fallible men (i.e. Calvin, Zuingli, Luther, Wesley, etc…) or without relying on the Catholic Church in its compilation of scripture and its early councils for things like the Trinity.

It really is not there, nor has anyone presented evidence to indicate it is.

All I have heard here, is people saying that the Catholic Church is wrong and we believe the Bible and our interpretation of it.

I am hoping with this thread to have good discussion regarding the issue of authority and foundation.

While I admire many things of my protestant brothers and sisters and I am happy that we share many aspects of the truth, I am grieved that we are not one, and that it is not on the radar of many to ever be one. I am also grieved knowing how much of God’s wondrous grace and truth is missing from many protestant traditions simply because they refuse to believe and or receive it. I desire for all to receive such miraculous grace (such as the confessional for example).

What does the Bible say about denominationalism?

Ephesians 4:4-6 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Matthew 12:25 "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, andevery city or house divided against itself will not stand.

1Corinthians 1:10-13 Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Phillipians 2:2 fulfill my joy by beinglike-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.

Psalms 133:1-3 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is For brethren to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious oil upon the head, Running down on the beard, The beard of Aaron, Running down on the edge of his garments. It is like the dew of Hermon, Descending upon the mountains of Zion; For there the LORD commanded the blessing— Life forevermore.

Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, unless they are agreed?1Corinthians 4:6-7 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other. For who makes you differ from another?…

Romans 16:17-18 Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple.

Jude 1:19 These are sensual persons,who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.

 

[benhur]

I’ve always found it fascinating that the word Eucharist is in the Bible, we just translate it all the way to English and leave it that way.

Another one I like (not in the Bible) is “Catholic.”

I think eucharist in Corinthians is not a noun but a verb. Anyways, the point is that if you translate into english, do it correctly…As far as “catholic”, some say it is in the bible though not exactly under "universal’ but very close. Don’t recall the scripture they use but it was pretty close, though I disagreed and found it a stretch.

 

[dronald]

Regarding Apollos, Is it your position that if Apollos had not been teaching accurately about Christ, that he would have been allowed to spread the erroneous teaching? If at least he was having people believe in Jesus and be baptized he was ok and the rest was inconsequential?

The key is he was teaching ACCURATELY! According to who?? Paul and the rest of the Apostles! THE CHURCH!!!

Second,

If the main thing that binds us is scripture, then how come we have different scripture? What bound Christians before Scripture?

I like how your questions allow me to answer both at once.

Before Scripture the Apostles bound us all.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I like how your questions allow me to answer both at once.

Before Scripture the Apostles bound us all.

What changed?

What evidence do you have that it did change ?

Why did the Apostles appoint successors with no authority and with no centrally consistent scripture?

 

[benhur]

My question is genuine. I have examined and can find ZERO evidence

So there is ZERO evidence for Protestant thought where it differs from CC ? It all really began in 1517 A.D. ? …Again, I don’t mean you have to agree with it, but just see what they put forth and why.