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

[dronald]

Let’s set that aside for now because you can’t seem to grasp the difference between church and state and church states. You also cannot seem to see how God authorized capital punishment throughout the Bible and Jesus never abolished it, but did call us to show more mercy, love, and grace.

This is where Catholics always lose me. A rejection of a tenant of Christianity could certainly give a Church the authority to remove said person from said Church. Nothing Jesus or the Apostles said would cause one to assume that heretics should be turned over to be exterminated. In fact, with the power they had they should have fought against it.

So I think it might serve us to step earlier in history since you reject the teachings of the church as it stood well before this. It’s not as if you reject solely the church hierarchy. You reject the core tenants of the faith. Things that Augustine did every day like mass, Eucharist, confession and submission to bishops.

We do submit and confess to our leaders; perhaps not in the same way that you do. All we can do now is interpret the words of those who came before us, and sometimes we reach different conclusions:

Clement of Alexandria
But the expression, I have given you to drink (ἐπότισα), is the symbol of perfect appropriation. For those who are full-grown are said to drink, babes to suck. For my blood, says the Lord, is true drink. John*6:55 In saying, therefore, I have given you milk to drink, has he not indicated the knowledge of the truth, the perfect gladness in the Word, who is the milk? And what follows next, not meat, for you were not able, may indicate the clear revelation in the future world, like food, face to face…

being more substantial than hearing, is likened to meat, and assimilates to the soul itself nourishment of this kind. Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: Eat my flesh, and drink my blood; John*6:34 describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both—of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle…

He says, and drink my blood. John*6:53-54 Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery! We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Saviour in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.

But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes

I guess I can post more when I’m not on my phone at work.

Why do you reject such things, or at least feel grounded in a church that does not have such things?

It seems your point is the church fell into Apostasy by the 1100’s or so since they put capital punishment for heretics. I of course reject that, but to go along with it, what year did the church fall off the rails? The years where we start to have more clearly catholic writings and less voids for you to fill with your own ideas?

Seriously, what year?

Not Apostasy, but I believe with the whole extermination of heretics they were simply incorrect. Matters of food are addressed in Romans 14, so I don’t condemn the CC for their teaching on the Eucharist. Although I do understand how important it is to you for me to believe what you believe on the Eucharist.

 

[Jon_S_1]

This is where Catholics always lose me. A rejection of a tenant of Christianity could certainly give a Church the authority to remove said person from said Church. Nothing Jesus or the Apostles said would cause one to assume that heretics should be turned over to be exterminated. In fact, with the power they had they should have fought against it.

We do submit and confess to our leaders; perhaps not in the same way that you do. All we can do now is interpret the words of those who came before us, and sometimes we reach different conclusions:

Clement of Alexandria
But the expression, I have given you to drink (ἐπότισα), is the symbol of perfect appropriation. For those who are full-grown are said to drink, babes to suck. For my blood, says the Lord, is true drink. John*6:55 In saying, therefore, I have given you milk to drink, has he not indicated the knowledge of the truth, the perfect gladness in the Word, who is the milk? And what follows next, not meat, for you were not able, may indicate the clear revelation in the future world, like food, face to face…

being more substantial than hearing, is likened to meat, and assimilates to the soul itself nourishment of this kind. Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: Eat my flesh, and drink my blood; John*6:34 describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both—of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle…

He says, and drink my blood. John*6:53-54 Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery! We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Saviour in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.

But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes

I guess I can post more when I’m not on my phone at work.

Not Apostasy, but I believe with the whole extermination of heretics they were simply incorrect. Matters of food are addressed in Romans 14, so I don’t condemn the CC for their teaching on the Eucharist. Although I do understand how important it is to you for me to believe what you believe on the Eucharist.

I don’t have any problem with this quote. There is of course great symbolism in the Eucharist but not solely symbols. Much more.

Book II, Chapter 2 of the Paedagogos, St Clement says:

And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh.
Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both— of the water and of the Word— is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father’s will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.

Were you aware the Catholic Church today in the Eucharist mixes water and wine just as described here?

Anyway it seems extremely poor argument to pull quotes out of context;

“The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.”,

-“The Instructor of the Children”. [2,2,19,4] ante 202 A.D.,

“The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. ‘Eat My Flesh,’ He says, ‘and drink My Blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!”,

-“The Instructor of the Children” [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D… ,

 

[Dave_Noonan]

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!

I think if history shows anything, it demonstrates that human knowledge is inadequate and human beings tend to ignore that fact. Thus, no one denomination has a monopoly on the truth by virtue of human anthropology.

I also think if one begins to look at church history holistically (not just the Western Church, or even just the Church that existed within the bounds of the former Roman Empire) one finds that Christianity was never uniform or united under one authority other than arguably councils that were truly ecumenical. Over time, the historical Catholic Church comes off as that one kid on the playground who nobody else wants to deal with any longer because he thinks he knows everything and wants to make up all the rules of the game. Eventually the other kids just go their own way.

Contra J.H. Newman, I think anyone who goes deeper into Church history, that is, beyond a distorted, Western-centric apologetic account of itself as the church, one ceases to be Catholic.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I think if history shows anything, it demonstrates that human knowledge is inadequate and human beings tend to ignore that fact. Thus, no one denomination has a monopoly on the truth by virtue of human anthropology.

I also think if one begins to look at church history holistically (not just the Western Church, or even just the Church that existed within the bounds of the former Roman Empire) one finds that Christianity was never uniform or united under one authority other than arguably councils that were truly ecumenical. Over time, the historical Catholic Church comes off as that one kid on the playground who nobody else wants to deal with any longer because he thinks he knows everything and wants to make up all the rules of the game. Eventually the other kids just go their own way.

Contra J.H. Newman, I think anyone who goes deeper into Church history, that is, beyond a distorted, Western-centric apologetic account of itself as the church, one ceases to be Catholic.

If this were true the Eastern churches and Ethiopian church and others would have formed something “more evangelical looking”. Instead they are very catholic looking.

I agree that humans are inadequate, but the Holy Spirit is not. Do you believe Jesus’ blessing and prayer and commission and sending of the Holy Spirit failed?

 

[dronald]

I don’t have any problem with this quote. There is of course great symbolism in the Eucharist but not solely symbols. Much more.

Were you aware the Catholic Church today in the Eucharist mixes water and wine just as described here?

Anyway it seems extremely poor argument to pull quotes out of context;

I do eat the flesh of the Lord and drink His blood, and I shall never hunger nor thirst. So I can’t disagree with Clement in your quotes either.

I simply quoted his explanation of what eating and drinking the Lord means.

Here’s Tertullian on John 6:

They thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing — meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, We ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. (On the Resurrection of the Flesh 37)

 

[Jon_S_1]

I do eat the flesh of the Lord and drink His blood, and I shall never hunger nor thirst. So I can’t disagree with Clement in your quotes either.

I simply quoted his explanation of what eating and drinking the Lord means.

Here’s Tertullian on John 6:

They thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing — meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, We ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. (On the Resurrection of the Flesh 37)

Before I move on, let me clarify something. Do you on fact believe in the real presence in the Eucharist?

 

[ltwin]

The problem is you guys are speaking different languages.

They frankly don’t care to do anything outside themselves, be reconciled with the church, publicly reconcile with God, or do anything outside their own head when it comes to sin.

It is private and individual.

This is why, despite years of seeking forgiveness of different sins, I never felt free of them until I went to the confessional. I wish Protestants could experience that because they would change their belief in a second!

This is simply incorrect. There is a strong culture of confession within evangelical Protestantism. Entire books have been written about it. If anything, Protestants took confession out of the confines of the confessional and brought it back in front of the entire church, where it was originally located.

The path from confession as a private act to confession as a public ritual stretches from the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 all the way to Oprah Winfrey. Confession of sin, an act originally intended to repair the relationship between God and sinner, was at first practiced in privacy; only a priest, bound to secrecy by the seal of the confessional, served as witness. Post-Reformation, confession of sin took up a supporting role in the conversion narratives of English Puritans, where it helped to reassure the Puritan believer of the reality of his faith. As part of a conversion story, confession of sin was done publicly; the whole purpose of the conversion narrative was to testify, before the gathered saints, to the reality of the conversion.

In colonial American Puritanism, and later in the hands of American revivalists, the confession of sin went through additional transformations. It was detached from the conversion narrative to stand alone. It still took place within sacred spaces, but it became increasingly visible: it moved to the front of the church, and was performed not only in front of other saints, but in front of a watching world. The number of confessions made at any given revival became a measure by which revivalists could gauge their success—and proof to unbelievers that the kingdom of God was advancing, pushing back the kingdom of darkness. Public confessions showed that the holy war against the forces of evil was prospering; revivalists were the recruiters of God’s army.

 

[Jon_S_1]

This is simply incorrect. There is a strong culture of confession within evangelical Protestantism. Entire books have been written about it. If anything, Protestants took confession out of the confines of the confessional and brought it back in front of the entire church, where it was originally located.

I am not talking about pastors who are caught with their pants down publicly apologizing to their congregations.

I am talking about a practice where people examen their conscience and reconcile with God in a very real public way before partaking in the Lords table.

Is it your opinion based on your quote that confession did not exist in the church before the 1200’s ??

 

[ltwin]

I am not talking about pastors who are caught with their pants down publicly apologizing to their congregations.

I am talking about a practice where people examen their conscience and reconcile with God in a very real public way before partaking in the Lords table.

That’s not what the quote is talking about. The quote is talking about regular members confessing their sins before the church. Pastors confessing sexual sin is covered in the book, but its not the extent of Protestant confession. The author’s point is that the obligatory requirement for famous Americans to confess wrongdoing publicly grew out of an older and well established evangelical Protestant culture of public confession.

The fact is you are incorrect in your assertion that evangelicals do not have concepts of public confession.

Is it your opinion based on your quote that confession did not exist in the church before the 1200’s ??

You are misreading the quote. It does not say that confession started after the Fourth Lateran Council. But the Fourth Lateran Council did promulgate a famous canon giving the sacrament of penance its current shape. 1215 is the author’s point of departure. You could go deeper, but she’s dealing with a modern American phenomenon. Given the historical period she is working with, 1215 is a good date to start with.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

If this were true the Eastern churches and Ethiopian church and others would have formed something “more evangelical looking”. Instead they are very catholic looking.

I agree that humans are inadequate, but the Holy Spirit is not. Do you believe Jesus’ blessing and prayer and commission and sending of the Holy Spirit failed?

I’m not sure why you’re positing evangelicalism as sort of the alternative “other”; you’re creating a false dichotomy between evangelicalism and apostolic Christianity, which also isn’t monolithic. There are many similarities between the Latinate Church and the other apostolic churches, but there are also serious differences in doctrine and practice as well. It all depends on which you wish to focus.

The Holy Spirit doesn’t magically turn humans into omnipotent or morally perfect beings (or necessarily even theologically competent ones, for that matter). I don’t think that was the intent of sending the Holy Spirit, but if it was, then yes, the historical evidence shows it very clearly failed.

 

[Publisher]

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?

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?

This is one of the frustrating things about CAF…Catholic posters “enjoy” making false statements as they draw 'caricatures" of non-Catholic beliefs.

So, let me ask you a question about the priesthood…must you go to a priest in order to have the “saving ordinances/sacraments” performed and dispensed in order to have access to grace? Must a Catholic only receive the bread and wine from a priest who “confects” the elements in order to receive Christ? A 'layman" could not do it could they? So the very human priest is necessary in order for you to stand “right” with God, is he not?

I and other Friends pray for each other all the time…we visit the sick and those in hospitals and pray for their wellbeing…we usually have our hands on them…nothing magic about it…but human closeness is a great healer.

I have requested a “meeting for clearness” when I’ve been at a spiritual low…several Friends act as “spiritual guide” and from them we hear about love and grace and mercy, all for the asking, we sometimes have someone to whom we are accountable to if one of us struggles with sin or difficulty in our lives…even when we make life changing decisions, we seek counsel from others in whom the Light dwells and seek their insight.

As far as baptism, again, another person is needed to perform the ritual for us…can a person baptize himself? Like Thecla did?

We believe in One Baptism. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit…“There is one coming after me who will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire…”…I received baptism from His Hand, he is the Baptizer.

In Acts we see how some of the apostles continued to worship in the Temple, even make sacrifice long after the resurrection…they continued to practice Jewish rituals, in fact Paul had problems with the other apostles as they wanted to make the Jewish rituals required in order to be a Christian, even the dietary restrictions were of concern. Water baptism is a Jewish ritual, done by Jews, it found it’s way into Christian belief…was it intended to be a ritual that was perpetually to be practiced? Just as the Temple rituals eventually decreased in importantanc for believers, so did the Jewish rituals, baptism held on…but Christ alone is the Source of our salvation, not water or bread or wine or oil or ???

If another human being has the ability to withhold a ritual or pronouncement at their whim, then I do not really have free access to God thru His grace.

Each of us is minister and priest, as we share in His Priesthood as members of a Holy Nation, a Royal Priesthood of His making.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I’m not sure why you’re positing evangelicalism as sort of the alternative “other”; you’re creating a false dichotomy between evangelicalism and apostolic Christianity, which also isn’t monolithic. There are many similarities between the Latinate Church and the other apostolic churches, but there are also serious differences in doctrine and practice as well. It all depends on which you wish to focus.

The Holy Spirit doesn’t magically turn humans into omnipotent or morally perfect beings (or necessarily even theologically competent ones, for that matter). I don’t think that was the intent of sending the Holy Spirit, but if it was, then yes, the historical evidence shows it very clearly failed.

Ouch

The sad part is. It “failed” according to…you.

Did it “fail” according to God?

The church is alive and strong despite lots of hard ships and the reformation. so I’d say no, in no way has it failed.

I was Evangelical for 30 years practicing every week, leading groups and teaching. That is why I focus on it more than other denominations since I have personal experience there and it sort of spans denominations with the term evangelical.

In all that time I never once was called to any sort of public confession. Not once. Closest we got was voluntary small group accountability.

 

[rinnie]

Based on what?

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

Baptism.

Show me the scripture where it states Baptism is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit that gives us the power to forgive sins in the name of God.

 

[rinnie]

Based on what?

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

Baptism.

Based on scripture. We all have the power of the Holy Spirit to do what Christ has called us to do. We all have different gifts.

Only a Priest has the power of the Holy Spirit to forgive sins.

 

[rinnie]

So God see’s that you seek forgiveness; have reconciled with the person you have wronged, does not ignore you and does not forgive you? Is that correct?

Nope its incorrect actually.

To begin with God does not see to anything, he gives us free will to seek forgiveness.

I have no idea what else you are asking. Maybe try another way. Not sure what you are saying.

 

[rinnie]

I’ll do my best not to derail your thread in any way. Sorry if I was taking it that way.

As I’ve stated (and I think it’s also what you may not want this discussion to be about) but it is one of my main points, and most likely one of my strongest points regarding history. Historically, the Catholic Church didn’t give people much of a choice to disagree.

For example, the French man (who’s name I have completely forgot, maybe someone can help me) couldn’t bear himself to accept the doctrine of the Eucharist. I believe this was in the tenth century, and he had to recant three times under fear of death. However, he died believing it was merely a symbol. The only thing that would hold back a belief like this was fear of persecution.

Of course, this started earlier with the most influential Christian since Paul, ie: Augustine. At first he was not alright with persecution but later admitted that persecution of heretics is a good idea. Such a view was adopted by Aquinas and evidence of the continuing belief is in Bulls, Councils, Edicts, what have you.

Assuming I was the ole French fella who’s name I cannot recollect because apparently I’m not awake right now, or I am Peter Waldo who did nothing wrong and was excommunicated, his followers hunted down and killed, etc. Let’s say I’m Wycliffe or Hus and I do have serious disagreements; yet I know I will be murdered for speaking my mind, then of course the Catholic beliefs will remain for a long time. Eventually something was going to give and it actually did in the 16th Century as Catholics love to boast.

So, take me back to any time after Augustine and tell me which “denomination” was better… The one that would murder me for my disagreement, or the one with the disagreement?

We confess our sins in small group. It’s a big deal to confess our sins and of course reconcile with the one who was wronged.

Berengar of Tours!!! 11th Century.

What if you sinned against God not an individual. How do you know if your sin is forgiven? Do you claim the power of the Holy Spirit to speak for God?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Ouch

The sad part is. It “failed” according to…you.

Did it “fail” according to God?

The church is alive and strong despite lots of hard ships and the reformation. so I’d say no, in no way has it failed.

I said I didn’t think that was the purpose for sending the Holy Spirit, but if you do, then you have what I would see as insurmountable historical issues. For me, an honest look at history dispels the illusion that the Catholic Church, or any church, represents a perfect understanding of moral and theological truth. That’s just not possible in this life (1Cor 13:12), as much as we would like for it to be.

I was Evangelical for 30 years practicing every week, leading groups and teaching. That is why I focus on it more than other denominations since I have personal experience there and it sort of spans denominations with the term evangelical.

It seems your understanding of Christianity is somewhat bifurcated into Evangelical (which you see as = Protestant) vs. Catholic = other Apostolic Churches being “Catholic like.” (I think many in those churches would be offended at this assertion, but that’s up to them.) The point is, in your original post you appealed to history as a lens though which to view the truth and foibles of various denominations, which we would agree on. But what I was saying is that a Western-centric apologetic view of history (such as you get from sites like this one) very much distorts what the early church looked like and what actually happened, and that if you dare to take a closer look, the Catholic Church doesn’t come off any better or worse than any other denomination. Catholic Answers does an excellent job explaining the Catholic faith, but when the apologists veer off into things like the Bible and history, it’s pretty much a mishmash of fact and unsupported fiction.

I understand you’re speaking from your person context, but what I’m saying is that if you dare to step outside of just “Evangelical vs. Catholic,” you’ll find there’s a lot more to the story.

In all that time I never once was called to any sort of public confession. Not once. Closest we got was voluntary small group accountability.

I’m not sure why you’re telling me this, but I think one mistake that evangelicals commonly make is to assume that all Protestant churches are more or less like theirs. There’s a vast array of diversity of practices and beliefs within Protestant churches.

 

[dronald]

What if you sinned against God not an individual. How do you know if your sin is forgiven? Do you claim the power of the Holy Spirit to speak for God?

I suppose I trust what the Bible says:

Psalm 32:5 I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not cover my iniquity; I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the LORD, " and you forgave the iniquity of my sin. Selah

Matthew 6:12 and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.

14 For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you,

15 but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Matthew 12:31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Eph 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

 

[dronald]

Nope its incorrect actually.

To begin with God does not see to anything, he gives us free will to seek forgiveness.

I have no idea what else you are asking. Maybe try another way. Not sure what you are saying.

You said that God may recognize you have a repentant heart, but may not forgive you.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

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!

Since I am my own pope, I rely completely on my own private interpretation to lead myself into truth.