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

[SyroMalankara]

The problem I have with your position joe, is not that you’ve examined history, Scripture, etc. to reach the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the true church. The problem I have is that you have done so and not held yourself to the same standards you hold non-Catholics to. If your view is that you could be wrong but you believe you’re right…I’m fine with that. But when it comes to us, it’s …“BLAAARRGGG, UNLESS YOU CAN KNOW SOMETHING INFALLIBLY, YOU CAN’T KNOW IT AT ALL…BLAAARG.”

Keep the same goal posts on both positions

In a way, I have a bit more respect for the atheist position against Catholicism, in that they reject Christianity as a whole. One cannot claim the Catholic Church nor the Eastern Orthodox, nor the Oriental Orthodox, nor the Assyrian Church of the East are simply another Christian Church along with their protestant denomination, because all 4 of these make claims about themselves, about what is necessary for faith, about sin, and more which would deem them down right uncharitable and placing an heavy burdened yolk on the necks of the faithful, if what they claim is untrue.

So as the argument about Jesus goes, either Messiah, Madman, or Myth - the same goes for each of the four Apostolic Churches. Whether one through faith and discernment chooses the Roman, Eastern, Oriental, Assyrian Communion - I personally would not feel is illogical - but protestantism as a system, to me, makes absolutely no sense. None claim to have begun any earlier than the 15th Century - that in itself places is outside what is reasonable as what Christ intended. Then each claim to be more original and more authentic than the last and can’t agree among each other on anything, and any disagreement leads to another denomination not an ecumenical agreement. Even those within the same general idea - ‘Lutheran’ for example, can’t agree what that means; Anglican for another can’t agree within itself what it means; etc, etc, etc. In addition to this strange chaotic behavior, there are other serious rejections which have very little basis other than the founders personal opinion and the formulation of a structure around that opinion usually by outside socio-political force, with theology coming much later. While the use of socio-political force isn’t itself a disqualifier, the founder of each sect claims to reject such from the Apostolic group it rejects but uses the same method (or worse, e.g. Calvin, Henry, Zwingli, almost all of them in fact) of force to get his own view pushed through.

 

[Uncle_Buzz]

I was an Agnostic. For years and years. God tried to get my attention. I ignored it. God kept on trying. I kept on ignoring. God offered a couple small miracle. I notices, but lost interest. God offered a couple more miracles. I noticed. Asked a few questions and again lost interest. God allowed my marriage to be stricken. That got my attention. But I remained skeptical. God allowed it to deteriorate to the brink of collapse. I learned to pray. God touched me, told me it would be okay and offered a miracle that change my wife’s heart in an instant. I became a believer. But in what?

I asked myself how do I determine who to worship with? I didn’t get very far. I asked God, whom am I to worship with and he lead me to the ELCA. But not right off. God showed me Catholicism. I was interested. But Catholics appeared more concerned with being Catholic than bring me to Christ. God led me to Methodists. But I didn’t get it. God led me to the Calvinists. I didn’t understand predestination. God led me to the Missouri Synod Lutherans. They were hung up on the young earth concept and I didn’t get that. Then God lead me to the ELCA. I needed their open arms to bring me into fellowship right then and there. And teach me what I need to know later on. I have learned that I have a lot to learn.

I have learned that Jesus said have faith in him and I am saved. I learned to follow where God leads. I have learned that faith is more than belief. I have learned that there IS one catholic Church and it is not necessarily the Catholic Church. I have learned that people worry to much – particularly about religion. I have learned that the Devil is real, and he wants my soul back. I have learned that if the Devil wants it back, then Jesus must have it! I like that thought!

My advice is stop worrying about what to do or how to do it, and follow God. Easier said then done. As you must learn how to hear him. I found that while sometime God shouts. Mostly God whispers.

That is how I did it.

 

[Per_Crucem]

In a way, I have a bit more respect for the atheist position against Catholicism, in that they reject Christianity as a whole. One cannot claim the Catholic Church nor the Eastern Orthodox, nor the Oriental Orthodox, nor the Assyrian Church of the East are simply another Christian Church along with their protestant denomination, because all 4 of these make claims about themselves, about what is necessary for faith, about sin, and more which would deem them down right uncharitable and placing an heavy burdened yolk on the necks of the faithful, if what they claim is untrue.

You’re arguing here against a very idiosyncratic view here, Syro. Certainly not one that I hold to. I have never and will never claim that the four churches you mentioned are just one among numerous others. Don’t argue with anabaptists when there are none present in the conversation.

So as the argument about Jesus goes, either Messiah, Madman, or Myth - the same goes for each of the four Apostolic Churches. Whether one through faith and discernment chooses the Roman, Eastern, Oriental, Assyrian Communion - I personally would not feel is illogical - but protestantism as a system, to me, makes absolutely no sense. None claim to have begun any earlier than the 15th Century

This betrays a clear lack on your part that you have not read any actual Protestant confessional statements.

Then each claim to be more original and more authentic than the last and can’t agree among each other on anything, and any disagreement leads to another denomination not an ecumenical agreement.

Why would I want to agree with a Baptist or a Calvinist?

Even those within the same general idea - ‘Lutheran’ for example, can’t agree what that means;

Basis for this statement, please?

 

[Paul_Edwards]

Oops, I did not see that…Just did brother…

 

[benhur]

The CC does not teach or believe that… "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

I wish it were that simple. There are further qualifying statements about knowingly rejecting allegiance to cc are there not ?

 

[benhur]

I was an Agnostic. For years and years. God tried to get my attention. I ignored it. God kept on trying. I kept on ignoring. God offered a couple small miracle. I notices, but lost interest. God offered a couple more miracles. I noticed. Asked a few questions and again lost interest. God allowed my marriage to be stricken. That got my attention. But I remained skeptical. God allowed it to deteriorate to the brink of collapse. I learned to pray. God touched me, told me it would be okay and offered a miracle that change my wife’s heart in an instant. I became a believer. But in what?

I asked myself how do I determine who to worship with? I didn’t get very far. I asked God, whom am I to worship with and he lead me to the ELCA. But not right off. God showed me Catholicism. I was interested. But Catholics appeared more concerned with being Catholic than bring me to Christ. God led me to Methodists. But I didn’t get it. God led me to the Calvinists. I didn’t understand predestination. God led me to the Missouri Synod Lutherans. They were hung up on the young earth concept and I didn’t get that. Then God lead me to the ELCA. I needed their open arms to bring me into fellowship right then and there. And teach me what I need to know later on. I have learned that I have a lot to learn.

I have learned that Jesus said have faith in him and I am saved. I learned to follow where God leads. I have learned that faith is more than belief. I have learned that there IS one catholic Church and it is not necessarily the Catholic Church. I have learned that people worry to much – particularly about religion. I have learned that the Devil is real, and he wants my soul back. I have learned that if the Devil wants it back, then Jesus must have it! I like that thought!

My advice is stop worrying about what to do or how to do it, and follow God. Easier said then done. As you must learn how to hear him. I found that while sometime God shouts. Mostly God whispers.

That is how I did it.

welcome uncle buzz agree with KISS principle which is keep it simple stupid and avoid vain disputation and beware of many words. Blessings

 

[Paul_Edwards]

Things (dogma ,practices) evolve or develop ever so slowly. Throw a frog in boiling water and he immediately jumps out. Throw him into lukewarm water and he stays in as you even turn up the heat slowly, till he boils to death. So writings against developments may not be there, or as much as could be, due to the gradualness of the acceptance of " the way things are". And the way things are now must be how they were then and who wants to go against tradition, the status quo ?.. As the frog said at 200 degrees F., “Things are fine. Just as they always have been”. The rupturing is soon to begin, like a greats chism or a reformation.

So you evolved into democracy?

 

[Koineman]

Whether one through faith and discernment chooses the Roman, Eastern, Oriental, Assyrian Communion - I personally would not feel is illogical

It’s quite illogical because they don’t all agree, yet you’re saying they are all apostolic. And I would add that East and West disagree on some pretty important issues. So what you’re saying is that even though they disagree on very important issues, they are all valid.

Of course, Protestants then could make the same claim: Even though they don’t all agree, they are all valid. Of course you’ll reply that they are not valid because they lack a historical pedigree, but that argument is satisfactory ONLY if a historical apostolic pedigree is the ONLY requirement. It is not. Another requirement, just as important, is adherence to apostolic doctrine and not going beyond what the apostles taught. That is clear not only in Scripture but also in the church fathers (I’m thinking particularly of Chrysostom and Irenaeus). Paul makes this quite clear in Gal. 1:8-9:

*But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. *(Douay-Rheims version)

Paul did not exempt even himself of other apostles from this anathema if they brought another gospel. So doctrinal faithfulness is a criterion that is just as valid and important as historical pedigree.

Incidentally, SyroMalankara, I’m awaiting your response to my latest reply to you earlier in this thread.

 

[SyroMalankara]

You’re arguing here against a very idiosyncratic view here, Syro. Certainly not one that I hold to. I have never and will never claim that the four churches you mentioned are just one among numerous others. Don’t argue with anabaptists when there are none present in the conversation.

And yet whether Anabaptist, Lutheran, Calvinist or any other non-Apostolic sect - the criteria is one’s individual interpretation of Scripture. While YOU would not argue this way, there are many who will and their view is equal to you if they can quote some Scripture. There are many who belong to one or the other main-stream protestant sect, who claim the anabaptist position with no official discouragement or clarification from the body they belong to. If I as a Catholic, or an Eastern Orthodox, or an Oriental Orthodox, or an Church of the East member/cleric openly stated teachings contrary to official Church teaching there is an actual consequence, probably excommunication or at least strong statements to the contrary with incentive to seek penance.

This betrays a clear lack on your part that you have not read any actual Protestant confessional statements.

Not true, I was raised partly protestant. I have read many Protestant confessional statements, none of which clearly agree in underlying principle with each other; except for articulating the Bible as the rule of Faith, either sole or final. But how the Bible is interpreted ends up being based on the founders tradition or up to an individual pastor opinion. The particular tradition I was raised with was Anglican, although how that is defined, again depends on the particular pastor/deacon/layman.

Why would I want to agree with a Baptist or a Calvinist?

You already to in general principle on how the Bible is to be understood, although still not with a common outcome, which to me betrays the fault with that approach.

Basis for this statement, please?

There are denominations unaffiliated to each other, not accepting the other as Lutheran or Anglican (and even within the individual denomination itself, there are individual parishes unaccepting [out of communion] of another) and not in full communion with one another. Why is this, if Lutheranism/Anglicanism is understood in a catholic (complete, universal) way?

 

[Jon_S_1]

The problem is not that he didn’t. The problem is your criteria for what constitutes the church of Matthew 16 is never mentioned by Jesus himself. So why would I accept it? And if a whole slew of church fathers didn’t accept it, so more the merrier.

I think you maybe forgot to read on. Let’s move over to Matt 18;

15 ‘If another member of the church[d] sins against you,[e] go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one.[f] 16 But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax-collector. 18 Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven

Here we see a church with members.

A single church is mentioned.

If there is a dispute (someone claiming against what Jesus taught for example) then you go to the church with it.

The church definitively rules on the matter and if you do not submit to the authority of the church then you are thrown out of the church.

Notice the keys of binding and loosing are mentioned here to.

This means the church is visible and will last until Jesus comes back. It means the church not the scripture is the final authority.

These are the words of Christ. He did not say take it to the scriptures and whatever you interpret it to say let that settle it. No he said take it to a living voice the church!

So I ask you sir,

When did this system fail and why would almighty God let a system he created fail ?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Not all churches. Most churches teach some truth along with some error (some more error than truth and vice versa). If I believed my confession taught anything erroneous, I wouldn’t belong to it.

So again you are the final arbiter.

That must not come on to handy during evangelization. “Whatever you feel is right go with it”

 

[SyroMalankara]

It’s quite illogical because they don’t all agree, yet you’re saying they are all apostolic. And I would add that East and West disagree on some pretty important issues. So what you’re saying is that even though they disagree on very important issues, they are all valid.

They agree on First Things/First Principles.

Of course, Protestants then could make the same claim: Even though they don’t all agree, they are all valid.

Yet they have not. Many protestant sects will officially say the direct opposite.

Of course you’ll reply that they are not valid because they lack a historical pedigree, but that argument is satisfactory ONLY if a historical apostolic pedigree is the ONLY requirement. It is not. Another requirement, just as important, is adherence to apostolic doctrine and not going beyond what the apostles taught.

I agree that these are equally important, but there is no body to say what is or is not Apostolic in your church.

Paul did not exempt even himself of other apostles from this anathema if they brought another gospel. So doctrinal faithfulness is a criterion that is just as valid and important as historical pedigree.

Of course. I’m not disagreeing. In my Church’s Liturgy (the Holy Qurbono of St. James the Apostle), the same Liturgy as the Syriac Catholics, Syrian Orthodox, Malankara Orthodox, and Maronite Catholics, we pray every Sunday before the Pauline Epistle:

Preaching of Paul holy Apostle I heard
If someone shall teach anything
Other Than what I have taught you
Though he be heaven’s messenger
Accursed shall he be in Church
Diverse doctrine spread on earth
Many are those who embrace them
He who stands firm in God’s teachings
He shall ever be called blessed

another translation:

Paul The Lord’s Apostle said
-If one come to preach to you A doctrine other than I preached to you
-Be he man or angel bright,
-Cursed be he in Church’s sight; Doctrines all diverse arise,
-Shooting up with many lies;
-Blest is he who first and last
-Trusts Gods truth and holds it fast

 

[Koineman]

Originally Posted by Per Crucem
Not all churches. Most churches teach some truth along with some error (some more error than truth and vice versa). If I believed my confession taught anything erroneous, I wouldn’t belong to it.

So again you are the final arbiter.

How is that any different from you personally deciding that the Catholic Catechism, which is a confession of faith, is true? Just as Per Crucem is the final arbiter when it comes to the confession of his church, you, too, are the final arbiter of your church’s confession. At some point, at some stage, you personally decided that the CCC is true. You made an interpretation of text, information, and so on. You are just as much the “final arbiter” as any Protestant.

It’s that whole speck and plank thang.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Difference is, the Catholic/EasternOrthodox/OrientalOrthodox/AssyrianChurch member says, yes Lord this is your Church, I submit to her authority. I may have doubts but you and your church are correct, let me see why and where I am wrong.

The Protestant approach is, all churches have mistakes which I have to sift through; there is no one true church of Christ; all are man-made and have some truths and lots of errors. I like church A’s approach on abortion, but they are wrong on Mary; church B is right on the Rev. 12, but wrong on how they support death penalty; church C has it right with A and B on those, but it’s wrong to use organ music and insist on ankle skirts for women… etc.

The Catholic/EO/OO/CoE approach does not allow for choosing doctrine A, disliking B, choosing C, discarding D. It’s all or nothing, except for some theologumena.

The Protestant approach is, let me see which doctrines I will accept and hopefully I’ll find a church that has my view, or is okay with my disagreement.

 

[Per_Crucem]

So again you are the final arbiter.

That must not come on to handy during evangelization. “Whatever you feel is right go with it”

I will let Koine’s response stand. You made the decision to be Catholic. Don’t pretend like your will was magically subsumed and taken over and you made no personal decision to believe anything. That would be absurd. The Patrick Madrid hand me downs don’t work in the real world.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I think you maybe forgot to read on. Let’s move over to Matt 18;

Here we see a church with members.

A single church is mentioned.

If there is a dispute (someone claiming against what Jesus taught for example) then you go to the church with it.

The church definitively rules on the matter and if you do not submit to the authority of the church then you are thrown out of the church.

Notice the keys of binding and loosing are mentioned here to.

This means the church is visible and will last until Jesus comes back. It means the church not the scripture is the final authority.

These are the words of Christ. He did not say take it to the scriptures and whatever you interpret it to say let that settle it. No he said take it to a living voice the church!

So I ask you sir,

When did this system fail and why would almighty God let a system he created fail ?

This is nothing different than what a Baptist would say. They just locate the church in a different place than you. Absent from this passage is anything about a papacy, magisterium, successors, infallibility, Rome, et al.

 

[Koineman]

Difference is, the Catholic/EasternOrthodox/OrientalOrthodox/AssyrianChurch member says, yes Lord this is your Church, I submit to her authority. I may have doubts but you and your church are correct, let me see why and where I am wrong.

Huge problem: In order to conclude that it’s the right church, one has to make interpretations, whether it’s an interpretation of the Bible, that church’s teachings, etc. You didn’t come to that conclusion in a vacuum, unless you are admitting to 100% blind faith, in which case I’d say you are treading on very dangerous ground. But if you did not rely on blind faith, and there was some kind of precedent for your acceptance of your church, then you had to have made an interpretation. That lands you smack dab in the same footing as the Protestants. You are really on no better footing than the Protestant whom you think is a final arbiter, to use Jon S.'s words.

The Protestant approach is, all churches have mistakes which I have to sift through; there is no one true church of Christ; all are man-made and have some truths and lots of errors.

Wow, I know quite a few Protestants, and I spent many years in evangelical circles before becoming Lutheran, and I’ve never come across that approach/view, at least in the way you have expressed it here.

And I’m still awaiting your response, my friend. I hope you’re not blowing it off. I asked you some very crucial, foundational questions about your view that deserve a careful, well-reasoned response.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Huge problem: In order to conclude that it’s the right church, one has to make interpretations, whether it’s an interpretation of the Bible, that church’s teachings, etc. You didn’t come to that conclusion in a vacuum, unless you are admitting to 100% blind faith, in which case I’d say you are treading on very dangerous ground. But if you did not rely on blind faith, and there was some kind of precedent for your acceptance of your church, then you had to have made an interpretation. That lands you smack dab in the same footing as the Protestants. You are really on no better footing than the Protestant whom you think is a final arbiter, to use Jon S.'s words.

Wow, I know quite a few Protestants, and I spent many years in evangelical circles before becoming Lutheran, and I’ve never come across that approach/view, at least in the way you have expressed it here.

And I’m still awaiting your response, my friend. I hope you’re not blowing it off. I asked you some very crucial, foundational questions about your view that deserve a careful, well-reasoned response.

I’m assuming you are referring to this:

Even if there were no problems in this reply, it actually doesn’t even answer my question. I didn’t ask you if they have a common understanding of how to interpret correctly. I asked you how you know your church’s interpretation is correct. That’s a fair question, since you asked me how I determine what’s right and wrong. How can you look at the speck in my eye without first removing the plank from your own eye?

I’ll make my question even more specific: How do you know your church’s interpretation is correct on these issues:
their rejection of papal infallibility
their rejection of the Immaculate Conception
their rejection of the supremacy of the pope
their rejection of original sin
the Filioque issue

My Church is an Eastern Church in Communion with Rome; so to answer your question, my Church doesn’t reject Roman interpretation so much as realizing a lot of the theological language doesn’t apply to us, as is stated to Romans from Rome in Roman speak. As to the core meaning of the doctrines, we agree that it is not heretical and we have our own language, theology, patristics and explanations that complement the other Eastern Churches and the Roman Church.

 

[Per_Crucem]

And yet whether Anabaptist, Lutheran, Calvinist or any other non-Apostolic sect - the criteria is one’s individual interpretation of Scripture.

No, it isn’t. Well, I mean, I could interpret the Scriptures differently than our confessions. But I would be excommunicated.

While YOU would not argue this way, there are many who will and their view is equal to you if they can quote some Scripture.

Yes, because of all the times that we have argued, “Hey, it’s not about the soundness of your argument, all you have to do is quote Scripture.”

If I as a Catholic, or an Eastern Orthodox, or an Oriental Orthodox, or an Church of the East member/cleric openly stated teachings contrary to official Church teaching there is an actual consequence, probably excommunication or at least strong statements to the contrary with incentive to seek penance.

Right, because my church would still let me commune if I came in hooting and hollaring that the eucharist is a symbol

Not true, I was raised partly protestant. I have read many Protestant confessional statements,

You haven’t demonstrated that.

none of which clearly agree in underlying principle with each other; except for articulating the Bible as the rule of Faith, either sole or final. But how the Bible is interpreted ends up being based on the founders tradition or up to an individual pastor opinion.

Evidence that contradicts your statement that you’ve read them. How many times the Augsburg Confession and the Small Catechism mention sola scriptura, Syro?

There are denominations unaffiliated to each other, not accepting the other as Lutheran or Anglican (and even within the individual denomination itself, there are individual parishes unaccepting [out of communion] of another) and not in full communion with one another. Why is this, if Lutheranism/Anglicanism is understood in a catholic (complete, universal) way?

If your proposition were true, then why does not Rome, the East, the Oriental, the Assyrians, the Old Catholics, the PNCC, et al. exist if sola ecclesia is a more unifying proposal?

 

[Jon_S_1]

How is that any different from you personally deciding that the Catholic Catechism, which is a confession of faith, is true? Just as Per Crucem is the final arbiter when it comes to the confession of his church, you, too, are the final arbiter of your church’s confession. At some point, at some stage, you personally decided that the CCC is true. You made an interpretation of text, information, and so on. You are just as much the “final arbiter” as any Protestant.

It’s that whole speck and plank thang.

For me personally no. I saw the historical basis for the Catholic Church. I also saw that the Catholic Church that has a way of implementing Matt 18 and has from the beginning.

I am divorced without annulment. But I saw the truth of the church and give the rest to God.