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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jon_S_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SyroMalankara said:
Going further - the earliest Church offered incense together, prayers, readings of Apostles/Bishops letters to the Churches (think Paul to Ephesians, the Letters of Peter, or Letters of Clement, etc), they locked the doors once the readings were completed and only allowed the baptized/confirmed/Communed to gather for the second part focused on the altar.
Here, the high point of all of the readings, incense, sermon was the Prayer of Eucharist where Christ came for all present (a spiritual Second Coming).

Other than the Catholics and Orthodox, which Church does any of this? Perhaps High-Church Anglo-Catholics and Historical Lutherans (who basically claim to be Catholics of a different branch) can claim this continued practice and understanding; definitely NOT any other protestant sects, they don’t even accept this as the reality of what the early church practiced. In regard to the claims of those two (now extremely tiny) protestant sects, the rest of the protestants would say they are following “pagan Catholic ritualism of men”, and nothing more; while they are rejected as lacking various necessary elements of Faith and Praxis by both the Catholics and Orthodox.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have seen this borne out from excavations of early churches dating back to 4th century on up.They had two sections, one for catechumen and one for baptized. It facilitated the catechumens from "withdrawing’’ undisruptively before the consecration, which some thought to be “secretive”. Not sure this was the practice before hand, or before persecution stopped and you had no big churches etc… We have no evidence this took place during apostolic times. We do have admonitions to partake of worthily, but had no reference to unbaptized departing. I find it quite cold and mystical to have unbaptized totally depart. I would venture to say it may have been early church but certainly not apostolic church (1st century)…Why don’t we continue that today ?
 
benhur said:
Yes, I have seen this borne out from excavations of early churches dating back to 4th century on up.They had two sections, one for catechumen and one for baptized. It facilitated the catechumens from "withdrawing’’ undisruptively before the consecration, which some thought to be “secretive”. Not sure this was the practice before hand, or before persecution stopped and you had no big churches etc… We have no evidence this took place during apostolic times. We do have admonitions to partake of worthily, but had no reference to unbaptized departing. I find it quite cold and mystical to have unbaptized totally depart. I would venture to say it may have been early church but certainly not apostolic church (1st century)…Why don’t we continue that today ?
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church does it today.

If you are a catechuman, you attend a particular mass where you are dismissed to a class.

I think it must have certainly been much earlier, starting in the first century. It really was done to not only keep them from the Eucharist and creed recitation (obviously not Nicene creed ) but also to vet them. They needed to make sure they were not infiltrators and also make sure they really were ok committing to losing their lives and families.
 
benhur said:
In determining which denomination has it right you have to read all of Martyr’s writings on the subject. Not to say you won’t see them as Catholic also but they certainly might explain better where “other” views come from. What you quoted certainly seems like CC RP , but no more than CC view on scripture/RP. I say that because if we differ on scripture references to RP we will differ on Fathers saying similar things.
Click to expand...
RP??
 
Ben hur,

This is an excellent summation in line with the books I have on the matter. (I know it’s Wikipedia).

Although catechumens existed by the time of the Letter to the Galatians (Strong’s G2727), which mentions them, the practice slowly developed, from the development of doctrine and the need to test converts against the dangers of falling away. The Bible records (Acts 19) that the Apostle Paul while visiting some people who were described as “disciples”, established they had received the baptism of John for the repentance of sins but had not yet heard of or received the Holy Spirit. Further, from the second century it appears that baptisms were held only at certain times of year, indicating that periods of instruction were the rule rather than the exception. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes: “As the acceptance of Christianity involved belief in a body of doctrine and the observance of the Divine law (“teach, make disciples, scholars of them”; “teaching them to observe all things whatever I have commanded you”, Matthew 28:20 (see Great Commission), it is clear that some sort of preliminary instruction must have been given to the converts.” See also Council of Jerusalem. Justin Martyr, in his First Apology, cites instruction as occurring prior to baptism:
As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated.
Click to expand...
The “persuasion” would be carried out by the preaching of an evangelist; but since belief must precede baptism, the person concerned should be prepared spiritually to receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit through baptism. That person would receive the sign of the Cross and possibly aspersion with holy water from a minister, indicating their entry to the state of catechumen.

Catechumens were limited as to their attendance in formal services. As unbaptized, they could not actively take part in any service, for that was reserved for those baptized. One practice permitted them to remain in the first part of the mass, but even in the earliest centuries dismissed them before the Eucharist. Others had them entering through a side door, or observing from the side, from a gallery, or near the font; while it was not unknown to bar them from all services until baptized.

Their desire for baptism was held to be sufficient guarantee of their salvation, if they died before the reception. In event of their martyrdom prior to baptism by water, this was held to be a “baptism by blood” (Baptism of desire), and they were honored as martyrs.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechumen
 
benhur said:
In determining which denomination has it right you have to read all of Martyr’s writings on the subject. Not to say you won’t see them as Catholic also but they certainly might explain better where “other” views come from. What you quoted certainly seems like CC RP , but no more than CC view on scripture/RP. I say that because if we differ on scripture references to RP we will differ on Fathers saying similar things.
Click to expand...
I have read Justin’s entire works, I cannot think of another description or area that makes me see a Protestant denomination. Do you know of any?
 
benhur said:
Yes, I have seen this borne out from excavations of early churches dating back to 4th century on up.They had two sections, one for catechumen and one for baptized. It facilitated the catechumens from "withdrawing’’ undisruptively before the consecration, which some thought to be “secretive”. Not sure this was the practice before hand, or before persecution stopped and you had no big churches etc… We have no evidence this took place during apostolic times. We do have admonitions to partake of worthily, but had no reference to unbaptized departing. I find it quite cold and mystical to have unbaptized totally depart. I would venture to say it may have been early church but certainly not apostolic church (1st century)…Why don’t we continue that today ?
Click to expand...
I think it was most likely early apostolic. People
frequently make the mistake of not researching what
was going on outside of the Church at the time instead
only imagining happy Christians meeting informally etc.
I was reading Pliny the other day and he was telling
the emperor in a letter about those followers of that
rabbi who was executed. Informing the emperor
of the two women he tortured for their resurrection
superstitions
who refused to deny Christ etc.
I’m quite sure the early Church kept quite a bit of
what they did under wraps and away from prying
eyes lol. It was not a Christian friendly environment.
 
marywarfield said:
I’m quite sure the early Church kept quite a bit of
what they did under wraps and away from prying
eyes lol. It was not a Christian friendly environment.
Click to expand...
I think we even started ‘under-wraps’ in the upper room where the first Eucharist was given.

As I understand it, it was only in 313 AD were Christians allowed to have their own building in the Roman empire.
 
benjohnson said:
I think we even started ‘under-wraps’ in the upper room where the first Eucharist was given.

As I understand it, it was only in 313 AD were Christians allowed to have their own building in the Roman empire.
Click to expand...
I am not sure how having an official church building prevents the catechumanate.

It really did start in the upper room and in Antioch under the persecution. I posted a good summary showing earlier evidence than 313.

In fact after 313 the process was CHANGED extending it to several years because so many people were converting for false reasons .
 
Jon_S said:
The Catholic Church does it today.

If you are a catechuman, you attend a particular mass where you are dismissed to a class.

I think it must have certainly been much earlier, starting in the first century. It really was done to not only keep them from the Eucharist and creed recitation (obviously not Nicene creed ) but also to vet them. They needed to make sure they were not infiltrators and also make sure they really were ok committing to losing their lives and families.
Click to expand...
Not sure it was first century and doubt your reasoning of vetting, for the evidence begins after persecution stops. If you are afraid you don’t even let them in for any part of the service. No it seems to have been strictly a religious practice until infant baptism finally took over and Christianity became dominant .
 
Jon_S said:
I have read Justin’s entire works, I cannot think of another description or area that makes me see a Protestant denomination. Do you know of any?
Click to expand...
Yes. He speaks that Christians do not eat flesh or drink blood and speaks of symbolism in John 6 and the sacrifice is one of thanksgiving, not propitiation.
 
Jon_S said:
Ben hur,

This is an excellent summation in line with the books I have on the matter. (I know it’s Wikipedia).

Although catechumens existed by the time of the Letter to the Galatians (Strong’s G2727), which mentions them, the practice slowly developed, from the development of doctrine and the need to test converts against the dangers of falling away. The Bible records (Acts 19) that the Apostle Paul while visiting some people who were described as “disciples”, established they had received the baptism of John for the repentance of sins but had not yet heard of or received the Holy Spirit. Further, from the second century it appears that baptisms were held only at certain times of year, indicating that periods of instruction were the rule rather than the exception. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes: “As the acceptance of Christianity involved belief in a body of doctrine and the observance of the Divine law (“teach, make disciples, scholars of them”; “teaching them to observe all things whatever I have commanded you”, Matthew 28:20 (see Great Commission), it is clear that some sort of preliminary instruction must have been given to the converts.” See also Council of Jerusalem. Justin Martyr, in his First Apology, cites instruction as occurring prior to baptism:

The “persuasion” would be carried out by the preaching of an evangelist; but since belief must precede baptism, the person concerned should be prepared spiritually to receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit through baptism. That person would receive the sign of the Cross and possibly aspersion with holy water from a minister, indicating their entry to the state of catechumen.

Catechumens were limited as to their attendance in formal services. As unbaptized, they could not actively take part in any service, for that was reserved for those baptized. One practice permitted them to remain in the first part of the mass, but even in the earliest centuries dismissed them before the Eucharist. Others had them entering through a side door, or observing from the side, from a gallery, or near the font; while it was not unknown to bar them from all services until baptized.

Their desire for baptism was held to be sufficient guarantee of their salvation, if they died before the reception. In event of their martyrdom prior to baptism by water, this was held to be a “baptism by blood” (Baptism of desire), and they were honored as martyrs.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechumen
Click to expand...
Actually people in Acts were usually baptized right away. Also it is strange to me that you must believe first ,then get baptism for regeneration. That says that man does not need to be regenerated, born again, to see the kingdom of God. He can do that by himself before any impartation or sacrament. He must believe first. Like I believe but am not saved for I have not been baptized, but I believe.
 
marywarfield said:
I think it was most likely early apostolic. People
frequently make the mistake of not researching what
was going on outside of the Church at the time instead
only imagining happy Christians meeting informally etc.
I was reading Pliny the other day and he was telling
the emperor in a letter about those followers of that
rabbi who was executed. Informing the emperor
of the two women he tortured for their resurrection
superstitions
who refused to deny Christ etc.
I’m quite sure the early Church kept quite a bit of
what they did under wraps and away from prying
eyes lol. It was not a Christian friendly environment.
Click to expand...
Again, why did they for sure have catechumens leave the service before the consecration after Christianity is the state religion? No one denies the persecution.it just doesn’t make sense to have them come to half a service if you aren’t sure of them.
 
benhur said:
Yes.
Click to expand...
Not that one man can determine anything, but he also says this:

“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation,** is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”
**

Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachias, one of the twelve, as follows: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices from your hands; for from the rising of the sun until its setting, my name has been glorified among the gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a clean offering: for great is my name among the gentiles, says the Lord; but you profane it.’ It is of the sacrifices offered to Him in every place by us, the gentiles, that is, of the Bread of the Eucharist and likewise of the cup of the Eucharist, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it."
 
benhur said:
Yes. He speaks that Christians do not eat flesh or drink blood and speaks of symbolism in John 6 and the sacrifice is one of thanksgiving, not propitiation.
Click to expand...
That’s not accurate. He defends against being accused of canibalism by trying to explain the real presence. It is an example of proof for the real presence.

Even the fact he was accused of that is proof.
 
benhur said:
Again, why did they for sure have catechumens leave the service before the consecration after Christianity is the state religion? No one denies the persecution.it just doesn’t make sense to have them come to half a service if you aren’t sure of them.
Click to expand...
Sure it does!

They were accused of being cannibals constantly by the Romans, so they withheld them from viewing the Eucharistic celebration. They also withheld the creed which was used as a way to show people in other places you were truly Christian.

They allowed them to come for the readings and sermon…something commonplace in Rome at the time was discussing philosophy and theology so there was no reason to hide that part.
 
benhur said:
Again, why did they for sure have catechumens leave the service before the consecration after Christianity is the state religion? No one denies the persecution.it just doesn’t make sense to have them come to half a service if you aren’t sure of them.
Click to expand...
Because that was not the sole reason. Only one reason was vetting.

The other reason was faith formation. Since they cannot partake of the Eucharist anyway until they are baptized they utilized that time to learn the faith.

It is the same way today.

The only reason it went away for a while was because virtually everyone was baptized as an infant. It is the days of lots of adult converts that need this. Today and the early church both fit that bill.

I reviewed Justin martyr 's works and my notes. I see ZERO suggestion of a symbolic Eucharist relating to John 6. You’ll need to provide evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top