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

[Irishgal49]

I am a former Evangelical, and I never asked myself this question, but when I did, I personally saw no other alternative than Catholicism or Orthodoxy. The roots of the tree were there, and the closer to the time if Christ, the more Catholic it looked.

So, if any of you have found another method besides history to determine the true expression of Christian faithfulness in a Protestant denomination, I’d love to hear it.

Thanks!

Good question. I was told that a faithful denomination followed the Bible. That’s as Protestant as it gets but remember, everyone has their way of saying, “It says this” or “It doesn’t say that–read it again.” The more I ponder the further away from Catholicism I get. I don’t have anything against anyone’s faith. In fact, I like to study them all, but in doing that, I feel less convinced of Catholicism. The sexual abuse scandal did little to sell me on the Church as a whole. Not that there are bad clergy, we have those everywhere, but the way that the institution covered it and hid it. I’m not convinced but I’d like to hear more Jon.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I agree it is very different than the old testament priesthood, but there was an apostolic office in the beginning for a reason, and we have very early writings that describe the priestly office we have today and all the Apostolic Churches have it, so it is definitely a modern invention to reject such an office.

I won’t disagree that Christ instituted a ministry (starting with the apostles). However, not of the kind that you hold to, nor do I see it early on in church history. Did it develop…certainly, but that is precisely the point. It developed.

 

[Jon_S_1]

The same could be asked of your interpretation of history. With what authority or grounding do you read history to be able to proclaim that it is squarely Catholic? There is much that is, and there is much that is medieval invention and some of the mix thrown in. Newman’s axiom that to be deep into history is to cease to be Protestant only exists because of his novel development of doctrine theory. Even he could see that without it, the Catholic Church of his day was markedly different than the previous several millennia.

I am really aiming more at non mainline protestants in this thread, because with Lutheran and Anglicanism, there is not much of a difference between our teachings. The issue of who is final authority is really the issue between us, but with Christians like I was in evangelicalism, the ancient faith is so much different than what is practiced in those churches.

So maybe it would be good for me to give an example of what I mean. How can an Evangelical Answer Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrenaeans of 107 AD. Remember that Ignatius was a disciple of the apostle John and second bishop of antioch, appointed just 24 years after Christ Rose from the dead. Antioch is where they were first called Christians.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

or his letters to the Philladelphians

2:1 Being, therefore, children of light and truth, avoid division and evil teachings; but where the shepherd is, there do ye follow as sheep.

2:2 For many wolves, which seem worthy of belief, lead captive by evil pleasure them who were running the godly race. But in your unity they shall find no opportunity.

CHAPTER 3
3:1 Abstain from evil herbage, which Jesus Christ doth not cultivate, because it is not the planting of the Father. Not that I have found division among you, but thorough purity.

3:2 For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ, these are with the bishop; and as many as have repented, and have entered into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall be of God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ.

3:3 Be not deceived, my brethren; if any one followeth a schismatic, he doth not inherit the kingdom of God; if any man walketh in an alien opinion, he agreeth not with the passion of Christ.

CHAPTER 4
4:1 Be diligent, therefore, to use one eucharist, for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup, for union with his blood; one altar, even as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons, who are my fellow-servants, to the end that whatever ye do, ye may do it according unto God.

 

[ltwin]

That said, if our discernment leads us into a teaching that is a modern invention compared to the teachings before, I wonder with what authority or confidence one can hold such a teaching?

I mean to me, it almost seems that it would take a prophet of God to give the authority to something so radical as rejecting the real presence of the Eucharist?

I don’t “reject” the real presence. I simply read and obey the Scriptures. In the pages of Scripture, I don’t see all the stuff that Catholics have attached to observing the Lord’s Supper. I’m not rejecting it. I am just doing what Jesus and Paul told us to do.

I also find it problematic that many protestants, and perhaps you, find that they each need to discern for themselves completely without the aid of the Saints and the first 1500 years of Christian history (and often the first 18-1900 years of Christianity)

So I am not advocating “let the pope do it”, but instead advocating that one include the first 1500 years of Christianity when they form their faith!

In a couple of weeks, I’m graduating with a masters in history. Most of my research concentrates on church history, so I definitely see the value of knowing church history in forming faith.

However, I think some Catholics and Catholic converts rely too much on their own experience and mistakenly believe that any Protestant exposed to church history will immediately swim the Tiber or look to the ancient churches in the East.

Well, sorry to burst you guys’ bubbles, but that’s not the case. If anything, learning about how the Western and Eastern Roman churches were shaped by the political and cultural factors within the Roman Empire gave me incredible perspective on how all Christian traditions are shaped by their environments. Catholicism is not exempt, and I find nothing spiritually illuminating in learning that it’s a very old institution.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I am really aiming more at non mainline protestants in this thread, because with Lutheran and Anglicanism, there is not much of a difference between our teachings. The issue of who is final authority is really the issue between us, but with Christians like I was in evangelicalism, the ancient faith is so much different than what is practiced in those churches.

That much is true. When it comes to the sacraments, the liturgy, etc., there is much in Catholicism that is apostolic. When it comes to evangelicals who hold to differing views on those, however, I still wouldn’t argue with them on historical grounds. Ultimately, those things must be argued on Scripture. Frankly, to resort to church history to debate those things is ceding ground to them, because they will point to it to demonstrate that Catholic teaching is based on the church and not on Scripture.

Remember that the antiquity of a belief is no basis for saying that the belief is true (in and of itself). It just means they might have believed something erroneous for a very long period of time. Gnosticism has been around since the first century, too.

 

[Jon_S_1]

People who are not Catholic don’t see it the way you do. I was raised Baptist and then Pentecostal and they didn’t talk about “true” churches…it was more of an almost Gnostic thing–of course we go to church to worship but it’s more an expression of our individual walks with Jesus and not “the Church”. We came to draw encouragement, support, and strength from each other and to pray and sing, but the Church was seen as all Christians not just our denomination, if that makes sense. I know some Protestants that hate Catholics (and sadly most have no idea what they hate) most just flat out don’t agree on some issues and it’s not “personal” it’s their understanding of their theology which is just as important to them as yours is to you.

Good (name removed by moderator)ut, This is indeed how I viewed it when I was protestant.

I found that it was not what the church historically held, and such a system had no way of solving the very real personal dispute over doctrine that led to my divorce. We tried to do Matt 18, but my wife just refused to listen to our church and followed her cult church and “their interpretation” of the Bible. Apparently Christianity was lost for 2000 years and these people invented it all and got it right for the first time.

So it was such a drastic personal experience that got me looking at the history of doctrines, and the history of the church in search of authority, craving authority and how to truly use Matt 18.

Catholicism made absolute sense after such a life issue as mine.

 

[Jon_S_1]

That much is true. When it comes to the sacraments, the liturgy, etc., there is much in Catholicism that is apostolic. When it comes to evangelicals who hold to differing views on those, however, I still wouldn’t argue with them on historical grounds. Ultimately, those things must be argued on Scripture. Frankly, to resort to church history to debate those things is ceding ground to them, because they will point to it to demonstrate that Catholic teaching is based on the church and not on Scripture.

Remember that the antiquity of a belief is no basis for saying that the belief is true (in and of itself). It just means they might have believed something erroneous for a very long period of time. Gnosticism has been around since the first century, too.

I am not so sure…we will see what people point out.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I don’t “reject” the real presence. I simply read and obey the Scriptures. In the pages of Scripture, I don’t see all the stuff that Catholics have attached to observing the Lord’s Supper. I’m not rejecting it. I am just doing what Jesus and Paul told us to do.

In a couple of weeks, I’m graduating with a masters in history. Most of my research concentrates on church history, so I definitely see the value of knowing church history in forming faith.

However, I think some Catholics and Catholic converts rely too much on their own experience and mistakenly believe that any Protestant exposed to church history will immediately swim the Tiber or look to the ancient churches in the East.

Well, sorry to burst you guys’ bubbles, but that’s not the case. If anything, learning about how the Western and Eastern Roman churches were shaped by the political and cultural factors within the Roman Empire gave me incredible perspective on how all Christian traditions are shaped by their environments. Catholicism is not exempt, and I find nothing spiritually illuminating in learning that it’s a very old institution.

Congratulations on your masters degree! I am considering starting mine soon…

Is it your opinion that the early church was similar to the evangelical/pentecostal church of today?

Or is it maybe your opinion that the early church is lost to history and the best we can do is try our best to worship God as best we can?

As a historian I would think you would value all aspects of history including oral history and secondary sources. when we start talking Bible alone, it seems that we are removing much of the historical record in helping us decipher a single collection of books.

 

[Publisher]

Wouldn’t you think it strange that God would set up a priestly ministry for thousands of years, Jesus would participate in priestly worship of God (circumcised, presented in the Temple, teaching and worshiping there, etc). And then now such an idea is deplorable to you?

Why, under whose authority would you reject the idea of priests ?

“Deplorable”??? I do not find rites and rituals as you seek to convey…just unnecessary…I have a High Priest I can go to…I share in His Priesthood. He fulfilled all ritual requirements of the Law. He removed the veil from the Holy of Holiies. He opened the doorway into His Presence…I can approach Him boldly before the Throne of Grace. No priest now stands between me and God. I need no man to conduct a ritual in order for me to enter this New Life.

If it is required now for another “priest” to open the “door” into His Presence by saying the “correct words” or make the correct gestures BEFORE God will accept me…then Christ’s work on the cross was in vain…He is Priest Alone.

 

[ltwin]

Congratulations on your masters degree! I am considering starting mine soon…

I loved it. It was a great two years. I’m kind of bummed I’ve chosen not to go after the PhD.

Is it your opinion that the early church was similar to the evangelical/pentecostal church of today?

Certainly not! I do believe that much of what Pentecostalism teaches regarding the spiritual gifts and their place in the life of the church was true of many churches in antiquity. I certainly believe they match closest to what Scripture says than any other church currently.

I think evangelicalism retains the urgency around the need for life changing conversion that I see in Scripture. However, I don’t believe that movements that arose in the 18th and early 20th centuries respectively existed in antiquity and were somehow recovered later on.

While modern evangelicalism and Pentecostalism are not ancient, I do believe they emphasize truth that is ancient and, more importantly, is Scriptural.

Or is it maybe your opinion that the early church is lost to history and the best we can do is try our best to worship God as best we can?

No, I think we actually know a lot about how the church developed throughout history. However, history is nuanced. Far too often, it seems to me, Catholics argue that because the Church Fathers wrote somethings that sound like a contemporary belief or practice that somehow that means that all over the Roman world every church believed that exact thing and that’s the way it had always been.

The truth is that there were ecclesiastical battles. There always have been. There were winners and losers. What is “orthodoxy” today is only so because one side lost and the other side won. Of course, the people writing at the time thought they were right. It just so happened that their side got to write the history of orthodoxy.

This should not be understood as some kind of affirmation of relativism. I do believe there is objective truth. However, I don’t believe that I need to or should look for this objective truth in the outcomes of ecclesiastical conflict.

As a historian I would think you would value all aspects of history including oral history and secondary sources. when we start talking Bible alone, it seems that we are removing much of the historical record in helping us decipher a single collection of books.

I think it’s interesting when Catholics talk about oral history. It’s not really oral anymore when it’s all been written down is it? I mean, I have never been referred to an actual record of oral history in dialogue with Catholics. I’ve always been referred to some sort of writing. And who really knows if the guys writing this stuff are really relying on oral history and tradition or if they are simply presenting their own ideas about the way things should be done.

Even today in organizations, in an age where everything is mostly written down, we still have people debate the real meanings of the rules and the real way “it’s always been done.” One person’s “tradition” adapting to new circumstances is another person’s heretical innovation.

It seems to me that Catholics have a hard time imagining that ideological and/or methodological drift is possible within the Catholic Church. As a student of history, I really find this way of seeing the Church unrealistic.

 

[Jon_S_1]

“Deplorable”??? I do not find rites and rituals as you seek to convey…just unnecessary…I have a High Priest I can go to…I share in His Priesthood. He fulfilled all ritual requirements of the Law. He removed the veil from the Holy of Holiies. He opened the doorway into His Presence…I can approach Him boldly before the Throne of Grace. No priest now stands between me and God. I need no man to conduct a ritual in order for me to enter this New Life.

If it is required now for another “priest” to open the “door” into His Presence by saying the “correct words” or make the correct gestures BEFORE God will accept me…then Christ’s work on the cross was in vain…He is Priest Alone.

I think you greatly misunderstand the priesthood. It is not as you describe.

Do you believe baptism is not necessary?

What do you believe is happening in James 5?

13 Are any among you suffering? They should pray. Are any cheerful? They should sing songs of praise. 14 Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective.

Does calling the elders for prayer or having someone anoint with oil mean Jesus died in vain?

Shouldn’t the sick just handle it themselves?

Why confess sins one to another? Isn’t it just between me and God?

 

[Jon_S_1]

I loved it. It was a great two years. I’m kind of bummed I’ve chosen not to go after the PhD.

Certainly not! I do believe that much of what Pentecostalism teaches regarding the spiritual gifts and their place in the life of the church was true of many churches in antiquity. I certainly believe they match closest to what Scripture says than any other church currently.

I think evangelicalism retains the urgency around the need for life changing conversion that I see in Scripture. However, I don’t believe that movements that arose in the 18th and early 20th centuries respectively existed in antiquity and were somehow recovered later on.

While modern evangelicalism and Pentecostalism are not ancient, I do believe they emphasize truth that is ancient and, more importantly, is Scriptural.

No, I think we actually know a lot about how the church developed throughout history. However, history is nuanced. Far too often, it seems to me, Catholics argue that because the Church Fathers wrote somethings that sound like a contemporary belief or practice that somehow that means that all over the Roman world every church believed that exact thing and that’s the way it had always been.

The truth is that there were ecclesiastical battles. There always have been. There were winners and losers. What is “orthodoxy” today is only so because one side lost and the other side won. Of course, the people writing at the time thought they were right. It just so happened that their side got to write the history of orthodoxy.

.

Very interesting.

I agree in some ways.

But I also see the Catholic Church, the Orthodox, the Coptics, the Syriac, the Armenians, the Ethiopians and a couple other apostolic churches, that while they may or may not be fully in communion, look amazingly similar. Even when developing outside of Europe such as the Ethiopians and Syriac churches.

It seems to me that leads credence to the earliest Christians, even the Apostles practicing a liturgical catholic-like faith.

What would you say I am missing?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Also, I think it is a stereotype to say Evangelicals best practice conversion inferring that conversion is not critical in Catholicism.

In fact I have heard more sermons about true radical life change in my Catholic Church than I ever did in evangelicalism.

That may or may not be true in all cases on both sides which is why I say a stereotype.

I think one could read pope Francis alongside Joel Olsteen and see Francis as calling one to a much more radical type of conversion and life change than Olsteen.

 

[ltwin]

I think one could read pope Francis alongside Joel Olsteen and see Francis as calling one to a much more radical type of conversion and life change than Olsteen.

Oh, come on. Comparing Osteen and Francis is like comparing E. L. James to Shakespeare.

 

[ltwin]

What would you say I am missing?

I wouldn’t say you are missing anything. It’s a reasonable conclusion. I just don’t think it’s the only reasonable conclusion. Read 1 Corinthians 14:26-33 and honestly tell me if that strikes you as liturgical? I think it’s reasonable to conclude that that is not liturgical worship, at least the highly structured liturgies you see in Catholic Churches today.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Oh, come on. Comparing Osteen and Francis is like comparing E. L. James to Shakespeare.

Haha lol…

 

[Jon_S_1]

I wouldn’t say you are missing anything. It’s a reasonable conclusion. I just don’t think it’s the only reasonable conclusion. Read 1 Corinthians 14:26-33 and honestly tell me if that strikes you as liturgical? I think it’s reasonable to conclude that that is not liturgical worship, at least the highly structured liturgies you see in Catholic Churches today.

I think it would be a mistake to assume that those 7 verses describe all that the Church in Corinth did. It would be a stark oversimplification to say “look their church is nothing like yours”. There are people with charismatic and prophetic gifts in the Catholic Church. They even assemble at times, but that is not to say that is all they do.

I would say this position is supported by the fact that there is absolutely no mention of the breaking of bread in this chapter.

The Christians in Corinth interacted daily, with the liturgy and breaking of bread happening on Sunday.

It is also interesting that Paul feels the need to regulate the practices in Corinth which is perhaps another aspect of the church foreign to evangelical types today.

1 Corinthians 11 talks about a more liturgical, formal church gathering.

Frankly, I don’t think viewing the practice of the Corinthians as an example of what to do is a good thing to do. The letter is a letter of correction against erroneous practices, abuses, and wrong priorities.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I wouldn’t say you are missing anything. It’s a reasonable conclusion. I just don’t think it’s the only reasonable conclusion. Read 1 Corinthians 14:26-33 and honestly tell me if that strikes you as liturgical? I think it’s reasonable to conclude that that is not liturgical worship, at least the highly structured liturgies you see in Catholic Churches today.

One of the things I found fascinating about early church liturgy was Justin Martyr. Very early around 150AD he describes the liturgy as:

"“And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the overseer verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.

Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the overseer in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.

And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the overseer, who provides for the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need.

But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead.”

EXTREMELY similar to today in the Catholic Church

 

[ltwin]

I would say this position is supported by the fact that there is absolutely no mention of the breaking of bread in this chapter.

Well, given the fact that chapter and verse are not original to the Scriptures, I don’t see why that should matter.

It is also interesting that Paul feels the need to regulate the practices in Corinth which is perhaps another aspect of the church foreign to evangelical types today.

What??? Foreign to evangelical churches??? Are you serious??? If anything, evangelical churches are too structured today.

Even Pentecostal churches have by and large subordinated the free moving of the Spirit to tightly controlled programs and schedules so as not to upset the delicate sensibilities of the middle class suburban membership. The platform leadership, by which I mean the ordained pastors and the music leaders, have too much control over the service.

This is a far cry from Azusa Street, where just about anyone was allowed to preach and anyone could start a song in English or in glossolalia. It’s only existed for 100 years, but Pentecostalism has developed its own hierarchies and unofficial liturgies.

1 Corinthians 11 talks about a more liturgical, formal church gathering.

When did simply observing Communion count as liturgical? My church celebrated Communion on Good Friday. Does that make us liturgical? Surely not, the horror. . .

Frankly, I don’t think viewing the practice of the Corinthians as an example of what to do is a good thing to do. The letter is a letter of correction against erroneous practices, abuses, and wrong priorities.

Except the part I cited was Paul telling them what they should do. Paul was not recounting their errors. He was telling them what was proper and “in good order.”

 

[Jon_S_1]

Well, given the fact that chapter and verse are not original to the Scriptures, I don’t see why that should matter.

What??? Foreign to evangelical churches??? Are you serious??? If anything, evangelical churches are too structured today.

Even Pentecostal churches have by and large subordinated the free moving of the Spirit to tightly controlled programs and schedules so as not to upset the delicate sensibilities of the middle class suburban membership. The platform leadership, by which I mean the ordained pastors and the music leaders, have too much control over the service.

This is a far cry from Azusa Street, where just about anyone was allowed to preach and anyone could start a song in English or in glossolalia. It’s only existed for 100 years, but Pentecostalism has developed its own hierarchies and unofficial liturgies.

When did simply observing Communion count as liturgical? My church celebrated Communion on Good Friday. Does that make us liturgical? Surely not, the horror. . .

Except the part I cited was Paul telling them what they should do. Paul was not recounting their errors. He was telling them what was proper and “in good order.”

So what about Justin Martyr? What are your thoughts on that? How does that relate to the “free moving of the spirit”

No communion alone does not indicate liturgy. But the correction itself indicates moving from informal to formal in chapter 11 and really throughout.

I realize the chapter and verses are not original, but the letter clearly goes from topic to topic and point to point in response to the questions and points Paul received from Corinth.