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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jon_S_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes and he describes Catholic baptism well too.

I am certain Tertullian would agree that if he wrote anything contrary to the Catholic faith that it should be rejected.

I don’t believe he did, but I see how you hand your hat on one father among dozens. Why?
He most certainly taught that one ought to wait before Baptism:

Tertullian (160-225)
On Baptism Chapter 18

newadvent.org/fathers/0321.htm
But they whose office it is, know that baptism is not rashly to be administered. Give to every one who begs you, has a reference of its own, appertaining especially to almsgiving. On the contrary, this precept is rather to be looked at carefully…
…. And so, according to the circumstances and disposition,** and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary— if (baptism itself) is not so necessary — that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, Forbid them not to come unto me. Let them come, then, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ.**
Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins? More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to ask for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given to him that asks.

And he ends with a very firm:

If any understand the weighty import of baptism,** they will fear its reception more than its delay**

Tertullian in the following chapters explains heavily into how a candidate shall act, all assuming the individual is of age to comprehend what is happening. Not an infant.
 
You remind me a lot in your argumentation of the baptists who claim they have an unbroken line to John the Baptist. They then go and point out one teaching in this heretical group, one in that, one in that to show this line. Never mind that this heretical group taught human sacrifice, or this one had sex orgies, or this one rejected the Trinity , if they believed adult baptism or symbolic Eucharist then they were baptist gosh darn it!
Which heretical group? There’s nothing wrong with the people I mentioned, only that they did in fact disagree and were killed for it. I point them out as proof that it was extremely hard to get one’s point across back then. Lol.
 
Different beliefs on the Eucharist and infant Baptism existed until Augustine. After him, the likelihood of hearing about baptism of children three or older, symbolic Eucharist, or the whole not persecuting heretics didn’t come around until the tenth century.

I would probably be quite alright with you baptizing infants and believing the true presence if it keeps me from being “turned over to the secular authorities” and burned.

See Barengar of Tours, Peter Waldo, John Wycliffe and Hus. The Waldenses and the Hussites.
You know I don’t recall if we specifically talked about why you backed out of coming over the Tiber, but if I recall it was that you saw God in your Evangelical Church and were really turned off by the heretic civil punishments.

I thought I had you convinced on this point of the real presence? Did that change?

You are my project…I will keep working on you!😃
 
Which heretical group? There’s nothing wrong with the people I mentioned, only that they did in fact disagree and were killed for it. I point them out as proof that it was extremely hard to get one’s point across back then. Lol.
That’s the point! The lay followers of Jesus were not trying to get their point across to the Apostles! If they did they were rebuked ! Over and over they were!

It is the church as a whole, the bishops together who hold the truth.

That is the model. Just like in the council of Jerusalem. The leaders together made the decision. The other followers did not get a say, nor did they have authority to teach contrary to the apostles.
 
You know I don’t recall if we specifically talked about why you backed out of coming over the Tiber, but if I recall it was that you saw God in your Evangelical Church and were really turned off by the heretic civil punishments.
No, I don’t think we ever did discuss it. My main reason is that I really wanted to become Catholic based on some of the things people would tell me.

I had many misunderstandings about Catholicism, and the only reason I did is because I would reiterate what other non-Catholics would tell me about them. However, I saw time and time again that these were all lies or just untrue. When I did go into a Catholic Church though, I could not bear myself to enjoy it. I tried to convince myself that this is right; I even signed up for RCIA and went to a couple of meetings with a Priest. He was the nicest fella and when I told him about the ECF’s and my studies he brought up Augustine and we discussed him.

I was throwing all my eggs in one basket, trusting in God that He certainly wants me to go this way; but I couldn’t bear myself to grasp the things Catholics do, and the way they believe certain things. I tried but I honestly couldn’t. I’m certain God was telling me to stay in my Church, I saw nothing that said I should join the CC. I prayed so much about it and He kept pointing to my Church I found.
I thought I had you convinced on this point of the real presence? Did that change?
Yes, Ignatius had me convinced; although there were other ECF’s who had altering opinions. And then it came to choosing between Orthodoxy and Catholicism which only made things more confusing.
You are my project…I will keep working on you!😃
And I love you for it.
 
That’s the point! The lay followers of Jesus were not trying to get their point across to the Apostles! If they did they were rebuked ! Over and over they were!

It is the church as a whole, the bishops together who hold the truth.

That is the model. Just like in the council of Jerusalem. The leaders together made the decision. The other followers did not get a say, nor did they have authority to teach contrary to the apostles.
Yes, but they became much worse than that; acting outside of Christ’s teachings. Not only in action, but in word as well through documents, etc.
 
Yes, but they became much worse than that; acting outside of Christ’s teachings. Not only in action, but in word as well through documents, etc.
I am not sure how you have the authority to definitively say that.
 
I am not sure how you have the authority to definitively say that.
The mere fact that they are being held accountable now, and therefore would never say some of the things they used to say is evidence that they were wrong. And they know it.
 
No, I don’t think we ever did discuss it. My main reason is that I really wanted to become Catholic based on some of the things people would tell me.

I had many misunderstandings about Catholicism, and the only reason I did is because I would reiterate what other non-Catholics would tell me about them. However, I saw time and time again that these were all lies or just untrue. When I did go into a Catholic Church though, I could not bear myself to enjoy it. I tried to convince myself that this is right; I even signed up for RCIA and went to a couple of meetings with a Priest. He was the nicest fella and when I told him about the ECF’s and my studies he brought up Augustine and we discussed him.

I was throwing all my eggs in one basket, trusting in God that He certainly wants me to go this way; but I couldn’t bear myself to grasp the things Catholics do, and the way they believe certain things. I tried but I honestly couldn’t. I’m certain God was telling me to stay in my Church, I saw nothing that said I should join the CC. I prayed so much about it and He kept pointing to my Church I found.

Yes, Ignatius had me convinced; although there were other ECF’s who had altering opinions. And then it came to choosing between Orthodoxy and Catholicism which only made things more confusing.

And I love you for it.
Thanks for sharing this. I can relate in a lot of ways, especially to how I would have felt 2 or 3 years earlier in my evangelical church.

It takes more than just facts…that’s a start. Keep seeking the truth. God will guide you.
 
The mere fact that they are being held accountable now, and therefore would never say some of the things they used to say is evidence that they were wrong. And they know it.
There is of course a difference between being wrong about discipline and being wrong about dogma and doctrine. The latter has never been repudiated. Ever.

Again, I find it fascinating…that all apostolic churches hold this. Surely if it was false one if the apostolic churches outside of Europe would have developed a different teaching.

What do you think about that.
 
Also,

“You could not bear yourself to enjoy it”

I’m not sure if this is what you meant, but church is not about us. In evangelical churches it absolutely is. It’s about a great speaker a great worship band, great fellowship programs, cute videos and jokes… Oh and a great coffee bar so you can enjoy a latte during the sermon!

Nothing bad in and if itself, but the goal is to be better than the next guy down the road do people come to you instead of him.

People thus “church shop” to find the church “they enjoy”. Now, I realize this doesn’t fit every mold of evangelicalism but it’s a lot of them. I am also not denying they love Jesus and are doing their best. In many cases they are.

That said, true worship gets lost in the buzz and diluted.

This why people don’t identify right away with liturgical worship off the get go. It is completely foreign.

100% about God and my submission and worship of him. Some of it is about me the gift of the Eucharist, the readings, the sermon

But not about me “enjoying” it. Instead about me being spiritually nurtured and challenged.

Once the paradigm switches it is far far easier to “enjoy” it.
 
Different beliefs on the Eucharist and infant Baptism existed until Augustine. After him, the likelihood of hearing about baptism of children three or older, symbolic Eucharist, or the whole not persecuting heretics didn’t come around until the tenth century.

I would probably be quite alright with you baptizing infants and believing the true presence if it keeps me from being “turned over to the secular authorities” and burned.

See Barengar of Tours, Peter Waldo, John Wycliffe and Hus. The Waldenses and the Hussites.
Augustine sermon 272- “How can bread be his body? And the cup, or what the cup contains, how can it be his blood?” The reason these things, brothers and sisters, are called sacraments is that in them one thing is seen, another is to be understood. What can be seen has a bodily appearance, what is to be understood provides spiritual fruit. So if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the apostle telling the faithful, You, though, are the body of Christ and its members (1 Cor 12:27). So if it’s you that are the body of Christ and its members, it’s the mystery meaning you that has been placed on the Lord’s table; what you receive is the mystery that means you. It is to what you are that you reply Amen, and by so replying you express your assent. What you hear, you see, is The body of Christ, and you answer, Amen. So be a member of the body of Christ, in order to make that Amen true.” …sermon 227.Therefore, the Holy Spirit draws near, the fire after the water, and you become bread, what is the Body of Christ. That’s the way in which unity is symbolized…What is “receiving unworthily”? To receive in contempt, to receive in mockery. Do not let [the sacrament] seem of little value to you just because you can see it. What you see passes away, but the invisible reality it is a sign of, does not pass away, but endures. Look: it is received, it is eaten, it is consumed. Is the body of Christ really consumed? Is the Church of Christ really consumed? Are the members of Christ really consumed? Hardly. Here they are cleansed; there they will be crowned. The “what” that it is a sign of will endure even though the sign seems to pass away… "
 
Also,

“You could not bear yourself to enjoy it”

I’m not sure if this is what you meant, but church is not about us. In evangelical churches it absolutely is. It’s about a great speaker a great worship band, great fellowship programs, cute videos and jokes… Oh and a great coffee bar so you can enjoy a latte during the sermon!

Nothing bad in and if itself, but the goal is to be better than the next guy down the road do people come to you instead of him.

People thus “church shop” to find the church “they enjoy”. Now, I realize this doesn’t fit every mold of evangelicalism but it’s a lot of them. I am also not denying they love Jesus and are doing their best. In many cases they are.

That said, true worship gets lost in the buzz and diluted.

This why people don’t identify right away with liturgical worship off the get go. It is completely foreign.

100% about God and my submission and worship of him. Some of it is about me the gift of the Eucharist, the readings, the sermon

But not about me “enjoying” it. Instead about me being spiritually nurtured and challenged.

Once the paradigm switches it is far far easier to “enjoy” it.
No, that’s not what I meant. Rather, I felt uncomfortable.
 
Augustine sermon 272- “How can bread be his body? And the cup, or what the cup contains, how can it be his blood?” The reason these things, brothers and sisters, are called sacraments is that in them one thing is seen, another is to be understood. What can be seen has a bodily appearance, what is to be understood provides spiritual fruit. So if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the apostle telling the faithful, You, though, are the body of Christ and its members (1 Cor 12:27). So if it’s you that are the body of Christ and its members, it’s the mystery meaning you that has been placed on the Lord’s table; what you receive is the mystery that means you. It is to what you are that you reply Amen, and by so replying you express your assent. What you hear, you see, is The body of Christ, and you answer, Amen. So be a member of the body of Christ, in order to make that Amen true.” …sermon 227.Therefore, the Holy Spirit draws near, the fire after the water, and you become bread, what is the Body of Christ. That’s the way in which unity is symbolized…What is “receiving unworthily”? To receive in contempt, to receive in mockery. Do not let [the sacrament] seem of little value to you just because you can see it. What you see passes away, but the invisible reality it is a sign of, does not pass away, but endures. Look: it is received, it is eaten, it is consumed. Is the body of Christ really consumed? Is the Church of Christ really consumed? Are the members of Christ really consumed? Hardly. Here they are cleansed; there they will be crowned. The “what” that it is a sign of will endure even though the sign seems to pass away… "
Sounds a whole lot like someone explaining the real presence while the accidents remain!

Better reread this.

And these.

“You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.”

-“Sermons”, [227, 21]

“He who made you men, for your sakes was Himself made man; to ensure your adoption as many sons into an everlasting inheritance, the blood of the Only-Begotten has been shed for you. If in your own reckoning you have held yourselves cheap because of your earthly frailty, now assess yourselves by the price paid for you; meditate, as you should, upon what you eat, what you drink, to what you answer ‘Amen’”.

-“Second Discourse on Psalm 32”. Ch. 4. circa

"For the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prayers for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them on their behalf.

Source: St. Augustine, Sermons 172,2, circa 400 A.D.

"The fact that our fathers of old offered sacrifices with beasts for victims, which the present-day people of God read about but do not do, is to be understood in no way but this: that those things signified the things that we do in order to draw near to God and to recommend to our neighbor the same purpose. A visible sacrifice, therefore, is the sacrament, that is to say, the sacred sign, of an invisible sacrifice… . Christ is both the Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to offer herself through Him.

Source: St. Augustine, The City of God, 10, 5; 10,20, c. 426:
 
In the earliest Church, confession was once in a lifetime. Eucharist would be received only a few times in a lifetime. Considering these circumstances, why would a preparation period before full reception to the Church be non-Apostolic? Should the liberal protestant practice of “all are welcome” be practiced, is that Apostolic? That includes the modern Anglican practice of not only all baptised, but even of all faiths, or even no faith, including animals!
All I have is your say so of only one confession and only a few “remembrances”. The book of Acts and Corinthians would contest that.
 
Not to further derail the thread; but could benhur explain to the rest of the class how 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 could be symbolic?

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

I would recommend John Salza’s “The Biblical Basis for the Eucharist.” Great book that BIBLICALLY refutes the numerous misconceptions about the Body and Blood of Christ.
Augustine answers that. Paul is referring to the Body of Christ as in us…When you do not consider your brethren, and eat and drink while others have little at the love feast.you are not discerning the needs of others ,you are not discerning the unity of the body of believers.
 
Augustine answers that. Paul is referring to the Body of Christ as in us…When you do not consider your brethren, and eat and drink while others have little at the love feast.you are not discerning the needs of others ,you are not discerning the unity of the body of believers.
Just got home and have to work at 6am tomorrow. I would love to continue this convo on the Real Presence in another thread, benhur. Interested?

Start the thread in the apologetics section and I will see you there after work. Goodnight.
 
Augustine answers that. Paul is referring to the Body of Christ as in us…When you do not consider your brethren, and eat and drink while others have little at the love feast.you are not discerning the needs of others ,you are not discerning the unity of the body of believers.
Umm no:tsktsk::dts:
 
Just got home and have to work at 6am tomorrow. I would love to continue this convo on the Real Presence in another thread, benhur. Interested?

Start the thread in the apologetics section and I will see you there after work. Goodnight.
As the OP I am fine with it staying here. The answer to the original question is intertwined in all of this.
 
Augustine answers that. Paul is referring to the Body of Christ as in us…When you do not consider your brethren, and eat and drink while others have little at the love feast.you are not discerning the needs of others ,you are not discerning the unity of the body of believers.
Here are some quotes from St Augustine. Again “I do not think he means what you think he means…”

“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Exp. of the Psalms 33:1:10)

“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Ser. 227)

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (Ser. 272)

“The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16, 30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body.” (Ser. 232)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top