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

[chero23]

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.

Protestants start their own churches just because. It’s so odd that they don’t read in their bibles, that it says we must be united as 1.

 

[JonNC]

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?

Not intending to speak for Per Crucem, but Lutheranism recognizes the validity of Catholic clergy, if that’s what you mean, even if we disagree with you theologically regarding the nature of the priesthood.
Jon

 

[JonNC]

Protestants start their own churches just because. It’s so odd that they don’t read in their bibles, that it says we must be united as 1.

Would you say that this criticism applies equally to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy and Catholicism, etc.?

Jon

 

[Jon_S_1]

Would you say that this criticism applies equally to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy and Catholicism, etc.?

Jon

No

The divisions between the apostolic churches are estrangements not re formations or recreations. It’s as if we are married but estranged but still live in the same house ,

Protestantism left the house and builds new houses wherever they whim of whatever style they choose .

In the Catholic Church we pray for church unity almost every day. As a Protestant I did not pray for that once.

If Christ actually teaches through many forms then for fifteen centuries, he taught that the Eucharist was his actual body and blood and thereafter he taught part of his people that it was only a symbol. The Catholic can’t live with this contradiction. I have seen it said that the Catholic is more interested in truth and the Protestant in goodness, but I don’t think too much of the formula except that it suggests a partial truth.
The Catholic finds it easier to understand the atheist than the Protestant, but easier to love the Protestant than the atheist. The fact is though now that the fundamental Protestants, as far as doctrine goes, are closer to their traditional enemy, the Church of Rome, than they are to the advanced elements of Protestantism. You can know where I stand, what I believe because I am a practicing Catholic, but I can’t know what you believe unless I ask you. You are right that enjoy is not exactly the right word for our talking about religion. As far as I know, it hurts like nothing else. We are at least together in the pain we share in this terrible division. It’s the Catholic Church who calls you “separated brethren,” she who feels the awful loss.

Flannery O’Connor

We need and want you home JonNC!

 

[chero23]

Would you say that this criticism applies equally to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy and Catholicism, etc.?

Jon

If Nything else, we might have a bend here or there but it’s not to the point of ou, let’s go and start our own church.
I can’t speak for orthodoxy bc I’m not orthodox, as we know they have basically split up into countries and boundaries.

Protestants meanwhile have two pastors at a local church, they argue bump heads and by next Sunday two churches are made up. I don’t think that’s how God intended things to be.

 

[JonNC]

No

The divisions between the apostolic churches are estrangements not re formations or recreations. It’s as if we are married but estranged but still live in the same house ,

Protestantism left the house and builds new houses wherever they whim of whatever style they choose .

In the Catholic Church we pray for church unity almost every day. As a Protestant I did not pray for that once.

So, Jon, division and disunity is ok, depending on the kind and form it takes?
As Lutherans, we confess the OHCAC weekly, and pray for its unity, and we further consider ourselves members of that Church Catholic.

We need and want you home JonNC!

Thank you, Jon. I appreciate the sentiment.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

If Nything else, we might have a bend here or there but it’s not to the point of ou, let’s go and start our own church.
I can’t speak for orthodoxy bc I’m not orthodox, as we know they have basically split up into countries and boundaries.

Protestants meanwhile have two pastors at a local church, they argue bump heads and by next Sunday two churches are made up. I don’t think that’s how God intended things to be.

A “bend here or there” that results in a thousand year schism?
The comment about Protestants just enforces the problem with the term, Chero. If a Lutheran parish has two pastors, they have to agree, at least on doctrine, or they take it to the Church.
OTOH, I agree that our divisions, all of them, are not what Christ intended.

Jon

 

[DAML72]

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.

THIS! I think that there are perhaps many non-Catholic Christians who never feel the need to question the denomination that they are in. For me, it happened because of a major spiritual and familial crisis that spurred me to seek the Truth. My parents were raised and educated in the Reformed Church tradition, have been active members their whole lives, and, unless there is a great change in the teaching or tradition of the Church, I don’t see them ever leaving. They feel fulfilled in their faith and their Christian community, and so why go out looking for trouble?

 

[DAML72]

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.

Might I suggest re-reading the book of Acts? Also, take a peek at Chapter 6 of book of John where Christ instituted the Eucharist.

 

[andrewstx]

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?

It’s hard for me stroke ridden mind to understand what you are asking…sorry. The cofC is a restorationist denomination, like the Mormons and the SDA. They believe that the original church which they identify with very soon became so corrupt that it became apostate and ceased to exist. According to their theory there was no church until they ‘restored’ it back into existence. Another unique view among fundamentalists is that they ‘observe’ the Lord’s Supper in a symbolic way every Sunday, but any other day is forbidden. They are very strict solo scriptura. Anything that the bible does not specifically demand is forbidden, including things that are trivial to most. Instrumental music is a no-no, as are candles, vestments, and a thousand other things.

They go by C E NI. Everything done in church must be Commanded in the New Testament, or have a specific Example in the NT, or be Nessacarily (sp) Inferred. They recognize no clergy-lay difference. And they believe that the Holy Spirit basically retired when the NT was finished. This sect was based on church unity, but they split into many denominations all using the cofC name. Just some examples are: the cofC with Sunday classes. The cofC without classes. The cofCs that support with money institutions like orphanages and Universities. Those who don’t support institutions. The cofCs who pass around a common cup in the Lord’s Supper. And those who use individual ‘shot glasses’ for the grape juice.

They have no ordination, if a man wants to preach all he has to do is find elders willing to hire him. There are no degrees needed, but they have colleges with bible degrees…no theology is offered. And they have 'schools of preaching like Sunset.

 

[DAML72]

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.

Same here. God works all things to the good - look at the beauty he has brought us through so much suffering and pain.

 

[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.

They had just as much authority to read the Bible and to clarify doctrine as the magisterium in Rome. But then, I don’t believe in papal infallibility.

 

[DAML72]

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.

Very true. I find this to be the case in my Parish. Every homily is a call to deeper conversion (in Evangelical language - every sermon is a call to a deeper relationship with Jesus Christ).

 

[Faithdancer]

Might I suggest re-reading the book of Acts? Also, take a peek at Chapter 6 of book of John where Christ instituted the Eucharist.

I don’t see a complex vertical hierarchy, papal infallibility or Christian sacerdotalism (among other accretions) mentioned in the Book of Acts. These are all much later developments.

 

[Faithdancer]

No

The divisions between the apostolic churches are estrangements not re formations or recreations. It’s as if we are married but estranged but still live in the same house ,

Protestantism left the house and builds new houses wherever they whim of whatever style they choose .

In the Catholic Church we pray for church unity almost every day. As a Protestant I did not pray for that once.

The unity many Catholics pray for is an organizational unity, under Rome. The universal church is the body of Christ which is already unified; some just can’t see it and mistake political/organizational unity for unity in Christ. Christ is present in any house where he is worshipped as Lord and Savior, true man and true God, who died on the cross to atone for our sin. The rest is just so much legalism.

 

[marywarfield]

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.

Again I say that if Christ did not specifically condemn
something held worthy under the Old Law either does
the CC. If Christ-as a Jew- was silent on a religious
teaching of His day the Church does not have the
authority to speak upon it differently.
The most obvious example I keep giving
is purgatory and tradition. The Jews prayed for their
dead. Which means Christ, his mother, father Joseph, aunts. Elizabeth,
Zachariah etc all prayed for the dead. Christ in His
ministry never said “Stop praying for the dead.”
So the early Christians continued to pray for the
dead. We have His Word that He had no intention to
abolish His Old Law As God He had given but instead
to bring it to fulfillment.

The Church has continued many many doctrines
and traditions from the OT onward for exactly that
reason. Both were given by God- the SAME God-
and if He says stop we stop and if He doesn’t we don’t.

Every single objection must be weighed against that
backdrop.

 

[DAML72]

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.

To the contrary - the Catholic Church holds the fullness of Truth. The Holy Spirit guarantees that the Church will not err on matters of faith and dogma. Through much prayer, discernment, and study, I have come to accept and treasure this gift from God. The question is, for those who don’t accept this, how do you determine what the truth is?
Which version of the Holy Spirit do you decide to follow?

 

[Jon_S_1]

So, Jon, division and disunity is ok, depending on the kind and form it takes?
As Lutherans, we confess the OHCAC weekly, and pray for its unity, and we further consider ourselves members of that Church Catholic.

Thank you, Jon. I appreciate the sentiment.

Jon

I didn’t say it was ok, just very very different than Protestantism. Fundamentally different.

Lutherans are close. They left the house and built a new one that looks super similar, but they still left.

 

[DAML72]

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?

With all due respect, Rinnie, I don’t think what you are saying is reflective of Catholic ideology. I don’t have the time or energy to check the Catechism, but I’m pretty sure that even mortal sins can be forgiven without a priest when there is perfect contrition and no opportunity to seek the sacrament. And I certainly would not assert that the Church teaches those who are not able to access the sacraments (non-Catholics) can not be forgiven of their sins.

I think that it is for our good that Jesus established this sacrament - so that we can be held accountable to others, and so that we could feel the physical and real presence of Christ when we are forgiven. It doesn’t mean that forgiveness is withheld from those who are not Catholic.

So, basically what I am saying is that I do believe that we can seek and receive forgiveness directly from Christ (the former Protestant in me). The Catholic Church does not deny this. But that doesn’t mean, either, that the Sacrament of Reconciliation is any less valid. It is a wonderful tool - calling us to regularly examine our consciences. The more we are called to examine our lives, the more we see how sinful we are and where we can strive to become more like Christ. And the relief of knowing for sure that your sins have been forgiven - being able to replay a confession in your mind and hearing the words of absolution - there is nothing like it. I wish everyone could experience that gift from God.

 

[SyroMalankara]

When I think of “The Church” I think of what Christ established and what the Apostles knew as Truth and passed on. Certainly when documents are calling for the extermination of human beings that church is acting contrary to the teachings of “The Church.”

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.

If this is your standard for rejecting the Latin Rite Catholic Church as a True Church, how can you accept Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Presbyterianism, or most any Western protestant/evangelical/etc sect, except some recent modern innovation as “really the Church”? The only sects that could pass, according to these standards are maybe the Assyrian Church of the East, if one overlooks a few internal squabbles; perhaps the Syriac Orthodox Church, if one overlooks a few internal squabbles; maybe some of the Eastern Catholics like the Russian Catholic Church or the Coptic Catholics, and the St. Thomas Christians of South India, now divided among 2 Eastern Catholic Churches and 2 Orthodox Churches. Sinful humans have used and will use secular forces to try to conform others to their will, whether Catholic or protestant or Orthodox. I don’t know that this should be a determining factor.