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

[Per_Crucem]

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.

It is not the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, if by that by you Pentecost. Are you saying that the Holy Spirit doesn’t unite us to Christ through Baptism?

 

[Faithdancer]

The statements of faith of all of the Protestant churches whose services I’ve attended over the last year- denominational and non-denominational- are virtually identical. I believe all are true.

 

[dronald]

The statements of faith of all of the Protestant churches whose services I’ve attended over the last year- denominational and non-denominational- are virtually identical. I believe all are true.

It’s actually incredible how true this is.

 

[benhur]

While practically true I don’t think it’s spiritually beneficial to just go along with the tradition your born in. If one is really owning their faith they should test what they believe and ensure they are on solid footing.

I was thinking more of an adult or one at the age of reason who gets spiritually reborn, not what your parents brought you up as, or even baptized you into.

As far as your Cosmos analogy , it seems both sides should produce evidence.

Yes, faith is the evidence of things not seen.

So far I have given some evidence for Catholicism, and I am looking for some evidence (or reasoning) people use to convince people of Protestantism.

Yes you have given some evidence. Again, one evidence for Protestantism is in her fruit, so much so that the CC acknowledges these other churches, outside her but still form her.

I, as a Protestant, and now even am not convinced by the “this is our interpretation of the Bible” argument since you can literally shop for whatever interpretation best suits you.

Yes, as you can literally shop for any church that suits you. …Both sides have biblical, historical reasoning.

 

[joe371]

ltwin,

Thanks for your perspective. Can you point to something specific that gives you the confidence that the Church as established by Christ and the Apostles would allow for something like the protestant reformation to occur the way it did and be of value forming multiple churches instead of reforming or bettering the one church?

Something in the New Testament or Early Church Fathers?

It seems all of my readings would point to submission to the church in all disputes (Matt 18), Submission to the Bishops and priests, and to avoid anyone that causes schism and disunity like the plague.

:yup:

 

[joe371]

Of course, the “princes of the church” at the time were never going to voluntary reform themselves, which is why the Reformation occurred the way it did. If “the Church” existed in the manner that Christ desired, there would have been no need for a Reformation.

So Jesus’ Church failed to exist in the manner that Jesus desired, which is why Jesus instituted the Protestant Reformation? What did the reformation fix?

 

[joe371]

We cannot know this for certain, but we do in fact see many many reforms since the reformation. The Catholic Church did not have to make these reforms, but did. They move slower than the reformers wanted, but time should move slow when doctrine is at stake yes? We don’t want to be chasing fads.

I love that you quoted these.

How would you then answer that PRIOR to the Reformation, there was no disputing, and it was Universally held:

Infant Baptism
Real Presence in the Eucharist
The priestly office
The Authority of Bishops in the Church

(to start with) It really seems that all of these things are creations of the reformation that are “contrary to what was taught” for 1500 years all the way to the time of Christ.

Same question I asked myself as a former non-Catholic.

 

[joe371]

Though I’m not one to speak for Publisher, the idea of priests as they exist within Catholic theology is not deplorable so much as it is totally ignoring the book of Hebrews. That book demonstrates that the priestly caste within Israel was a foreshadowing of Christ and is culminated and completed in Him.

The CC agrees with you:

The one priesthood of Christ

1544 Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the "one mediator between God and men."15 The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, “priest of God Most High,” as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique “high priest after the order of Melchizedek”;16 "holy, blameless, unstained,"17 "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified,"18 that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.

1545 The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church. The same is true of the one priesthood of Christ; it is made present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ’s priesthood: "**Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers."19 **

 

[joe371]

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.

Does Jesus’ instituted ministry, beginning with the apostles, still exist today within a church, assuming that you are right and it’s not the Catholic Church?

 

[Jon_S_1]

It’s actually incredible how true this is.

This may be true, but it does not answer the question of why the rejection of doctrines that were held for 1500 years prior by both Catholic and Orthodox.

To me , the Reformers were prophets sent by God (similar to how the Mormons view Joseph Smith) or it is the opinion of a man that people follow as opposed to the tradition of Christ and his apostles.

Does that make sense at all?

As a side, in my brief study of the LDS origins, it seems Joseph Smith identified this problem which is why he claimed divine revelation. To set him on a higher authority than the multitude of preachers surrounding him all claiming a different angle on scripture.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I would like to go back to Ignatius of Antioch, since that part of my thread went unanswered.

How do Protestants respond to reading quotes such as these from the very very early church, from a Bishop who was made Bishop within 25 years of Christ resurrection, in the town all the Christians fled to from Jerusalem…Antioch.

John Calvin responded to these by calling them fake and fabrications since they completely contradicted his ecclesiology. We know better now and know from Protestant, Catholic and Secular sources, that the short forms found with Eusebius are authentic.

So what say ye??

Letter to the Smyrenaeans;

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

Quote:
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.

 

[andrewstx]

Sorry, I did not start this thread until just now. There is one Protestant denomination that thinks they are the only true church with the only Christians it’s members. They are the a capella “churches of Christ” AND I used to be one of them.

Maybe you never heard of them, they exist almost exclusively in the deep South. They are not to be confused with the Christian Church Disciples of Christ.

They think they are the only true church to ever existy (even though they were not invented until 1906).

They think they are the only ones with valid baptism, even converts from other churches that use submersion must be re-baptized.

Churches of Christ members call them selves Christians. All members of other churches they call “non-Christians”. Many if not most cofC Campbellites think everyone else is hell bound.

I could go on, but won’t. Suffice it to say that I was deeply traumatised by the members of my own family when I left that sect and told I was no longer a member of the family, going to hell, and no longer Christian!

 

[Jon_S_1]

Sorry, I did not start this thread until just now. There is one Protestant denomination that thinks they are the only true church with the only Christians it’s members. They are the a capella “churches of Christ” AND I used to be one of them.

Maybe you never heard of them, they exist almost exclusively in the deep South. They are not to be confused with the Christian Church Disciples of Christ.

They think they are the only true church to ever existy (even though they were not invented until 1906).

They think they are the only ones with valid baptism, even converts from other churches that use submersion must be re-baptized.

Churches of Christ members call them selves Christians. All members of other churches they call “non-Christians”. Many if not most cofC Campbellites think everyone else is hell bound.

I could go on, but won’t. Suffice it to say that I was deeply traumatised by the members of my own family when I left that sect and told I was no longer a member of the family, going to hell, and no longer Christian!

Sorry you went through that!!

A good example of what can happen when the authority of the apostolic tradition is traded for the authority of an individual.

 

[tweetiebird]

I am a catholic. I remain a catholic mainly because of the 2000 year history of catholicism.

I have muslim friends who can trace their history several centuries to mohhamed

I even have hindu friends who can trace history over 3000 years.

Some of the denominations are only decades old with changes still coming in teaching.

It gives me comfort to think of something that has proved itself in the world over 2000 years.

It seems the catholic church will never shutter its doors. But some denominations might not stand the test of time.

 

[Faithdancer]

This may be true, but it does not answer the question of why the rejection of doctrines that were held for 1500 years prior by both Catholic and Orthodox.
This question is for another thread, as I understand the original post which started this one. Of course, if you consider the Catholic and Orthodox churches to be denominations of the greater body of Christ which includes all trinitarian Christians, then perhaps your question is germaine.
To me , the Reformers were prophets sent by God (similar to how the Mormons view Joseph Smith) or it is the opinion of a man that people follow as opposed to the tradition of Christ and his apostles.
I don’t see where the Reformers claimed any prophetic power, Jon. In fact among mainstream Protestantism today, the consensus is that prophecy ended with John the Baptist. There are, of course, some who hold a different view, but they are in the minority.

.

 

[Faithdancer]

Sorry, I did not start this thread until just now. There is one Protestant denomination that thinks they are the only true church with the only Christians it’s members. They are the a capella “churches of Christ” AND I used to be one of them.

Maybe you never heard of them, they exist almost exclusively in the deep South. They are not to be confused with the Christian Church Disciples of Christ.

They think they are the only true church to ever existy (even though they were not invented until 1906).

They think they are the only ones with valid baptism, even converts from other churches that use submersion must be re-baptized.

Churches of Christ members call them selves Christians. All members of other churches they call “non-Christians”. Many if not most cofC Campbellites think everyone else is hell bound.

I could go on, but won’t. Suffice it to say that I was deeply traumatised by the members of my own family when I left that sect and told I was no longer a member of the family, going to hell, and no longer Christian!

That is unfortunate and I would have to say that in my weekly encounters with different Protestant church services- nearly all of which are nearly identical- I have encountered one fundamentalist group which, while not COC, seems to have some similar views about other denominations.

Is the Cambellite view based solely on their idea of salvation through immersion baptism, or are there other reasons?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Faithdancer:
I agree that Protestants don’t generally (or ever) consider the reformers prophets of God.

Therefore it is problematic as the reformers had no commission or authority to act in the way they did.

 

[rinnie]

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

Oh ok yes I did.

Jesus said to his Apostles on Pentecost as he breathed the Holy Spirit on them go and forgives sins in my name who sin you bound is bound and loose is loose.

Now if God forgives everyone who repents how can sin be bound or loose?

 

[rinnie]

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.

You also said if we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us. There is no disagreement with me on that. but it does not say that if we confess our sins he WILL forgive us.

What is a person has a repentant heart but in the same token holds a grudge in his heart for someone else. One example why sin may or may not be forgiven.

All this scripture is saying is that Christ CAN forgive our sin, In in no way states he always will. Only God can say you are forgiven or held bound.

He gave the Priest the power to speak in his name to forgive or hold sin, but it is again through the Holy Spirit the Priest speaks. A gift given to him by Christ himself.

 

[rinnie]

It is not the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, if by that by you Pentecost. Are you saying that the Holy Spirit doesn’t unite us to Christ through Baptism?

Not at all. I am not understanding what you are asking on the first line. Please ask again. Thanks

The second line I agree 100% Baptism is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and it does indeed unite us to all become brothers and sisters in Christ, IF it is done in the name of the Trinity of course.

If you are saying in Baptism you do not receive the Holy Spirit then I must disagree with you.