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

[Jon_S_1]

By accepting your apology?

So I really want to keep this post evidence based.

Catholics show John 20 and James 5 among others to defend the priesthood and the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

We then show evidence from the early church fathers of this practice.

The Didache

Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . , On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure (Didache 4:14,14:1 [A.D.70]).

The Letter of Barnabas

You shall judge righteously. You shall not make a schism, but you shall pacify those that contend by bringing them together. You shall confess your sins. You shall not go to prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of light (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).

Ignatius of Antioch

For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ (Letter to the Philadelphians 3 [A.D. 110]).

For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop (ibid. 8).

Irenaeus

[The Gnostic disciples of Marcus] have deluded many women. . . Their consciences have been branded as with a hot iron. Some of these women make a public confession, but others are ashamed to do this, and in silence, as if withdrawing from themselves the hope of life of God, they either apostatize entirely or hesitate between two courses (Against Heresies 1:22 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness (Repentance 10:1 [A.D. 203]).

The Church has the power of forgiving sins. This I acknowledge and adjudge (ibid. 21).

Hippolytus

[The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop shall pray:] God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . pour forth now that power which comes from you, from your Royal Spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and which he bestowed upon his holy apostles. . . and grant this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, [the power] to feed your holy flock and to serve without blame as your high priest, ministering night and day to propitiate unceasingly before your face and to offer to you the gifts of your holy Church, and by the Spirit of the high priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command (Apostolic Tradition 3 [A.D. 215]).

Origen

[A filial method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, “I said, to the Lord, I will accuse myself of my iniquity” (Homilies in Leviticus 2:4 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian

The Apostle [Paul] likewise bears witness and says: "Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord "*. But [the impenitent] spurn and despise all these warnings; before their sins are expiated, before they have made a confession of their crime, before their conscience has been purged in the ceremony and at: the hand of the priest . . . they do violence to his body and blood, and with their hands and mouth they sin against the Lord more than when they denied him (The Lapsed 15:1-3 (A.D. 251]).

Of how much greater faith and salutary fear are they who . . . confess their sins to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience. . . I beseech you, brethren; let everyone who has sinned confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession is still admissible, while the satisfaction and remission made through the priests are still pleasing before the Lord (ibid. 28).

Sinners may do penance For a set time, and according to the rules of discipline come to public confession, and by imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of Communion. [But now some] with their time [of penance] still unfulfilled . . . they are admitted to Communion, and their name is presented and while the penitence is not yet performed, confession is not yet made, the hands of the bishop and clergy are not yet laid upon them, the Eucharist is given to them; although it is written, “Whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” * (Letters 9:2 [A.D. 253])

John Chrysostom

Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.” Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding: but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? (The Priesthood 3:5 [A.D. 387]).

**

Finally we show evidence from Lutherans and the Anglican Churches that continued this practice after the reformation.

So show me an equal amount of evidence to reject the practice…

 

[rinnie]

Because you feel sorry for it and have repented of it. I doubt God ignores a repentant sinner.

Your doubt does not speak for God. Because God does not IGNORE a sinner who repents does no mean he forgives him. How can I know if God forgive me or not?

I want assurance.

 

[rinnie]

Not speaking for Per Crucem, but I think you misunderstand. We believe our clergy can pronounce absolution!
From the Smalcald Articles

So, not only do we not claim there is no need for the ordained ministry, we vigorously defend it.

Jon

I totally understand what you are saying Jon. Again my bad when reading Per Crucem on that point.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Well, no…but I wouldn’t expect that the Catholics would whip out swords and start butchering them, either.

Remember, though, it was Leo X that condemned Luther for not believing that it is the Holy Spirit who commands us to off heretics

Well no not like that at least.

A nation has a duty to its citizens to protect them. In most countries treason is a capital crime, America included. It is a crime against the stability of society.

This was far more true and critical a thousand years ago than today. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Here is the big difference, I as a Christian can forgive you if you ask me. You say I am sorry I say I forgive you. Not only can a Christian forgive we are commanded by God to do so.

But I as a Christian can forgive YOU, but I have no power to forgive your sins in the name of God.

Based on what?

Lets say you commit mortal sin and say to me forgive me, so I say no problem its all good. Who am I to speak for God in his name.

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.

Where and how did I get power from the Holy Spirit to forgive sin in HIS name.

Baptism.

 

[dronald]

So I really want to keep this post evidence based.

Catholics show John 20 and James 5 among others to defend the priesthood and the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

We then show evidence from the early church fathers of this practice.

Finally we show evidence from Lutherans and the Anglican Churches that continued this practice after the reformation.

So show me an equal amount of evidence to reject the practice…

I’m sorry; but you’ll have to show me where Evangelicals teach that we shouldn’t confess our sins and seek forgiveness.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Your doubt does not speak for God. Because God does not IGNORE a sinner who repents does no mean he forgives him. How can I know if God forgive me or not?

I want assurance.

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!

 

[Jon_S_1]

I’m sorry; but you’ll have to show me where Evangelicals teach that we shouldn’t confess our sins and seek forgiveness.

My quotes describe clearly confessing to elders, apostles, and priests, publicly in church, and bishops.

You and I know full well no evangelicals believe that should or needs to be done. Show me evidence to support your position.

 

[dronald]

Your doubt does not speak for God. Because God does not IGNORE a sinner who repents does no mean he forgives him. How can I know if God forgive me or not?

I want assurance.

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?

 

[dronald]

My quotes describe clearly confessing to elders, apostles, and priests, publicly in church, and bishops.

You and I know full well no evangelicals believe that should or needs to be done. Show me evidence to support your position.

Not every single one of them supports your position, nor do they deny your position. The one that stuck out the most was James 5:

16Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.

I suppose this is only for the leaders of the Church?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Listen guys,

I started this thread in hopes we could avoid the my position vs your position, opinion opinion opinion.

Let’s not do that this time. We all get that people interpret the Bible differently. It is not helpful to post a couple vs that Protestant apologists have come up with round about answers for and vice versa.

This is why I titled the thread the way I did.

I have given evidence for the truth of the sacrament of confession from scripture, the early church, and even modernity.

This shows evidence that rejecting the confessional is a modern belief by a minority of Christians.

So if that minority of modern Christians wants to convince people to reject a two thousand year old practice I would just ask for them to give an equal amount of evidence to support their position.

In other words on what authority do you hold your position over let’s say even Lutherans?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Not every single one of them supports your position, nor do they deny your position. The one that stuck out the most was James 5:

16Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.

I suppose this is only for the leaders of the Church?

Well it does reference calling the elders. You’ve heard “what is the therefore there for”. To link to the previous verse referring to the elders of the church being called.

All of the ECF quotes support my position. Maybe we can March them out 1 by 1.

“Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . , On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure (Didache 4:14,14:1 [A.D.70]).”

 

[dronald]

Listen guys,

I started this thread in hopes we could avoid the my position vs your position, opinion opinion opinion.

Let’s not do that this time. We all get that people interpret the Bible differently. It is not helpful to post a couple vs that Protestant apologists have come up with round about answers for and vice versa.

This is why I titled the thread the way I did.

I have given evidence for the truth of the sacrament of confession from scripture, the early church, and even modernity.

This shows evidence that rejecting the confessional is a modern belief by a minority of Christians.

So if that minority of modern Christians wants to convince people to reject a two thousand year old practice I would just ask for them to give an equal amount of evidence to support their position.

In other words on what authority do you hold your position over let’s say even Lutherans?

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?

Well it does reference calling the elders. You’ve heard “what is the therefore there for”. To link to the previous verse referring to the elders of the church being called.

All of the ECF quotes support my position. Maybe we can March them out 1 by 1.

“Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . , On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure (Didache 4:14,14:1 [A.D.70]).”

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.

 

[benhur]

Well I think I have a grasp of why Protestants become Catholic. At least for myself and in reading a number of conversions.

I suppose my question is more of how can any Protestant not become Catholic when seriously looking at history? With what grounding do you hold your interpretation (or denominations interpretation) of scripture and what it means to be a Christian?

OK That is what I thought…Reminds me of what the current Cosmos tv show narrator said to a group of scientists, " I fully understand why 85% of you are atheists, I just don’t understand about why the rest of you are not !"( paraphrased)… I like to say the proof is in the pudding. If one is somewhat aware of the options (CC, P or O) I would say where one is birthed is where one will probably remain. That is if one is spiritually birthed in Protestantism it seems reasonable to remain, to see it’s value (especially if not birthed in another church)…As I stated, history still leaves a fork in the road, a “decision” to be made. One traveler looks at the same history and sees Catholicism justified. Another Protestantism. Another Orthodoxy. All from the same journey thru history.

 

[benhur]

So I really want to keep this post evidence based.

Catholics show John 20 and James 5 among others to defend the priesthood and the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

We then show evidence from the early church fathers of this practice.

Finally we show evidence from Lutherans and the Anglican Churches that continued this practice after the reformation.

So show me an equal amount of evidence to reject the practice…

The evidence presupposes that these things must be correct, that is infallible The evidence is weak that people went into a confessional, and confessed to a priest, and then were told to say three Our Fathers in the earliest church. It may be a beautiful thing today, but was unheard of from and during and a generation after the apostles. Your evidence strongly suggests an evolving for milennia. And if you have evolving you can have error (hence the strong need for infallibilitiy and it’s declaration(s) and the gradual growth of Tradition up to and over Scripture.

 

[Venicejazz]

It is because of history that I remain a Friend.

I do not find the faith affirming history of the Catholic church to be compelling. When the “darker side” of Christian history is examined one finds a very different view.

While the ECF’s present what the proto-Orthodox/Catholic churches believed and practiced, they were also pretty “loose” with their “facts” when they wrote about other traditions they perceived to be “heretical”…not ALL ECF’s took this road, many did.

Bart Erhman’s “Lost Christianities” and “Lost Scriptures” present I believe a more fact based history of early Christianity.

Now I’ve been a Friend for over 35 years, so I obviously couldn’t have made my decisions when I was 19 thru reading Erhman…he just confirmed what I had come to understand.

I don’t believe my own tradition is “the True Church” …nor do I believe any organization hola a monopoly on Truth. I made my choice based on the character of Jesus and what he came to do. He did not come to free us from one set of rituals and rites to only burden us with a new set.

He alone is Priest. I could not be Catholic/Orthodox/Mormon/Lutheran/ Anglican or any body that requires me to undergo a ritual done by someone else to or for me in order to share in His Life. If another man is required to perform a ritual for or to me, that places them in between me and God…/and I need no ones "intervention " to make sure the right words or right gestures are done in order for me to approach God.

That’s pretty much it in a nut shell. Christ and He alone has made the Way open.

Apologies if this is off-topic. I don’t come from a Protestant background. In fact, I didn’t know the difference between Catholics and Protestants until college. When I was spiritually seeking for the last few years, I began attending a Quaker meeting. It was wonderful and I cannot overstate how important it was in bringing me to the Church. I could never have entered into a more traditional church, because of the many (false) preconceptions I had. I really think there is great kinship between Friends and Catholics. Quaker meetings have a sense of sacred space to them: walking in is sort of like finding your seat before Mass. The few protestant churches I have attended did not feel that way to me. That doesn’t mean they’re not true of course. It’s just my observation.

 

[Jon_S_1]

OK That is what I thought…Reminds me of what the current Cosmos tv show narrator said to a group of scientists, " I fully understand why 85% of you are atheists, I just don’t understand about why the rest of you are not !"( paraphrased)… I like to say the proof is in the pudding. If one is somewhat aware of the options (CC, P or O) I would say where one is birthed is where one will probably remain. That is if one is spiritually birthed in Protestantism it seems reasonable to remain, to see it’s value (especially if not birthed in another church)…As I stated, history still leaves a fork in the road, a “decision” to be made. One traveler looks at the same history and sees Catholicism justified. Another Protestantism. Another Orthodoxy. All from the same journey thru history.

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.

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

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.

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.

 

[Jon_S_1]

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.

I know from other threads this is your biggest hang up.

Perhaps you can show me in scripture where individuals have a right to disagree with the church???

Why do you think this is a good thing?

 

[dronald]

I know from other threads this is your biggest hang up.

Perhaps you can show me in scripture where individuals have a right to disagree with the church???

Why do you think this is a good thing?

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.”

 

[Jon_S_1]

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.”

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.

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.

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?