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

[benhur]

“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]"

I believe the paragraph before this he says the bread is the Body of Christ , and the believers are also and the believers are on the altar. That is the how of what you see and what you believe, not transubstantiation…from the same sermon-" But what role does the bread play? We have no theory of our own to propose here; listen, instead, to what Paul says about this sacrament: “The bread is one, and we, though many, are one body.” [1 Cor. 10.17] Understand and rejoice: unity, truth, faithfulness, love. “One bread,” he says. What is this one bread? Is it not the “one body,” formed from many? Remember: bread doesn’t come from a single grain, but from many. When you received exorcism, you were “ground.” When you were baptized, you were “leavened.” When you received the fire of the Holy Spirit, you were “baked.” Be what you see; receive what you are. This is what Paul is saying about the bread. So too, what we are to understand about the cup is similar and requires little explanation. In the visible object of bread, many grains are gathered into one just as the faithful (so Scripture says) form “a single heart and mind in God” [Acts 4.32]. And thus it is with the wine. Remember, friends, how wine is made. Individual grapes hang together in a bunch, but the juice from them all is mingled to become a single brew. This is the image chosen by Christ our Lord to show how, at his own table, the mystery of our unity and peace is solemnly consecrated."" He does not give any real presence/transubstantiation view for what is “not seen”.

"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:

more of same sermon-“And He designed that there should be a daily sign of this in the sacrifice of the Church, which, being His body, learns to offer herself through Him. Of this true Sacrifice the ancient sacrifices of the saints were the various and numerous signs; and it was thus variously figured, just as one thing is signified by a variety of words, that there may be less weariness when we speak of it much. To this supreme and true sacrifice all false sacrifices have given place”.

 

[dronald]

Oh boy, am I allowed to sit and watch for once?

 

[benhur]

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)

" And he carried himself in his own hands: How was he carried in his own hands? Because, when he entrusted his own Body and Blood, he took into his hands that which the faithful are aware of; and he carried himself in a certain way when he said, “This is my Body.” from Augustine also. He does not say trans or allude to it. In a certain way to many indicate a figurative way. boniface 98-Therefore as the Sacrament of the Body of the Lord is in a certain way the Body of the Lord [Sicut ergo secundum quondam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est] and the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ is the Blood of Christ, so the Sacrament of the Faith is the Faith. Believing is nothing else than having faith.

“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)

Again from sermon 272 he means the body of Christ as in believers/the church.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I believe the paragraph before this he says the bread is the Body of Christ , and the believers are also and the believers are on the altar. That is the how of what you see and what you believe, not transubstantiation…from the same sermon-" But what role does the bread play? We have no theory of our own to propose here; listen, instead, to what Paul says about this sacrament: “The bread is one, and we, though many, are one body.” [1 Cor. 10.17] Understand and rejoice: unity, truth, faithfulness, love. “One bread,” he says. What is this one bread? Is it not the “one body,” formed from many? Remember: bread doesn’t come from a single grain, but from many. When you received exorcism, you were “ground.” When you were baptized, you were “leavened.” When you received the fire of the Holy Spirit, you were “baked.” Be what you see; receive what you are. This is what Paul is saying about the bread. So too, what we are to understand about the cup is similar and requires little explanation. In the visible object of bread, many grains are gathered into one just as the faithful (so Scripture says) form “a single heart and mind in God” [Acts 4.32]. And thus it is with the wine. Remember, friends, how wine is made. Individual grapes hang together in a bunch, but the juice from them all is mingled to become a single brew. This is the image chosen by Christ our Lord to show how, at his own table, the mystery of our unity and peace is solemnly consecrated."" He does not give any real presence/transubstantiation view for what is “not seen”.

more of same sermon-“And He designed that there should be a daily sign of this in the sacrifice of the Church, which, being His body, learns to offer herself through Him. Of this true Sacrifice the ancient sacrifices of the saints were the various and numerous signs; and it was thus variously figured, just as one thing is signified by a variety of words, that there may be less weariness when we speak of it much. To this supreme and true sacrifice all false sacrifices have given place”.

You apparently don’t understand it is both symbol and true reality.

Why does he say this in paragraph one if he just means the “body of believers”?

That cup, or rather what the cup contains, sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. It was by means of these things that the Lord Christ wished to present us with his body and blood, which he shed for our sake for the forgiveness of sins

He says explicitly the cup is the blood of Christ.

On a side note, in this sermon he describes exactly what Catholic mass is. We say the same lines , the same prayers , everything.

Why don’t you do those things in your church? Because you deny the real presence ultimately, for it is because of the real presence that such words and prayers and postures are done.

 

[Jon_S_1]

" And he carried himself in his own hands: How was he carried in his own hands? Because, when he entrusted his own Body and Blood, he took into his hands that which the faithful are aware of; and he carried himself in a certain way when he said, “This is my Body.” from Augustine also. He does not say trans or allude to it. In a certain way to many indicate a figurative way. boniface 98-Therefore as the Sacrament of the Body of the Lord is in a certain way the Body of the Lord [Sicut ergo secundum quondam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est] and the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ is the Blood of Christ, so the Sacrament of the Faith is the Faith. Believing is nothing else than having faith.

Again from sermon 272 he means the body of Christ as in believers/the church.

Why does he say Jesus carried himself in his own hands ?

If the bread is the church it would make sense that he say Jesus carries the church in his own hands.

He didn’t.

This is revisionist history at its absolute best !

We have Augustine describing in detail catholic mass exactly as it is today. And then you say , oh but all that is just figurative language.

Frankly it’s laughable.

 

[mackbrislawn]

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.

I appreciate your position. And I agree Christ and He alone has made the Way open.

But, how is it we know of Christ? Who or what has taught us of Christ? Who or what has taught us to believe in God and the Bible? Some mystics may have had direct revelation but the rest of us haven’t. We in the western European tradition have learned of God and the Bible through the efforts of the Roman Catholic Church. Whatever we may think of it, whatever it is accused of, it is because of the evangelizing of an organized church that the the teachings of the apostles, belief in God, and belief in the inspiration of scripture (let alone scripture’s physical preservation) exist today. Without this evangelizing we would still be pagans (or, more likely, Muslims).

Without an organized church, nascent Christianity would have degenerated and have been lost among the other mystery cults of the Roman empire. Early Christian writings would have moldered and have been lost.

That’s the dilemma as I see it.

 

[Koineman]

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!

Adherence to apostolic doctrine, especially the Gospel, i.e., a succession of doctrine.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Adherence to apostolic doctrine, especially the Gospel, i.e., a succession of doctrine.

Arius, Nestorius and Eutachyes, et al, quoted the “Bible and the Gospels” to “prove” there heretical teachings. They were also wrong. How do you determine what’s right and wrong - don’t tell me the Holy Spirit convicts your heart and tells you individually, because the same claim is and has been made by those on the other side of your opinion.

 

[benhur]

Why does he say this in paragraph one if he just means the “body of believers”?
That cup, or rather what the cup contains, sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. It was by means of these things that the Lord Christ wished to present us with his body and blood, which he shed for our sake for the forgiveness of sins
He says explicitly the cup is the blood of Christ.

He explicitly explains it is not as literal as you say. It is not the same blood that flowed thru the veins of our Lord as He walked the Earth or of Him who is seated at the right hand of the Father, but surely it is representative spiritually of that same blood that was shed at Calvary and bought us, and put us into one Body. Even Jesus at the last Supper after He says , “This (is) my blood” says right after , “I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God has come”. I don’t see how you can refuse the concept of symbol, or a spiritual reality or metaphor for something that is still wine. To go beyond that is to have “much words” as is when you have transubstantiation described 8 centuries later. It was not an article of faith till 13th century. This is quibling as to just what is real presence and causes unneeded division. Again Augustine, "Now, as to follow the letter (observances of baptism and communion)
and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage On Christian Doctrine, Book 3)

On a side note, in this sermon he describes exactly what Catholic mass is. We say the same lines , the same prayers , everything.

Not so sure. Today’s consecration prayers seem more propitiary, more OT, like what we offer to God instead of what He has offered to and for us…For instance this consecration prayer, “Pray my brothers and sisters that out sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the Father Almighty” and we respond, “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands (the priests hands)” or “we bring these gifts to you oh God”, or “make them holy”…We know they are already holy and Calvary was accepted and we are to do it not praying about it or "hoping’ except in thanksgiving. It is only a sacrifice of praise and remembrance with thanksgiving, not repeated propitiation.

Why don’t you do those things in your church? Because you deny the real presence ultimately, for it is because of the real presence that such words and prayers and postures are done.

We do have the consecration prayer(the Lord’s words at the last supper including this is my body/blood and we do say partake only if you are in good fellowship with all members (examine yourself). Please don’t say but we only do it once a month or even just on sundays for apparently according to some here Catholics thru the ages did not partake every sunday either, and maybe only a few times in their lifetime.

 

[Koineman]

Arius, Nestorius and Eutachyes, et al, quoted the “Bible and the Gospels” to “prove” there heretical teachings. They were also wrong. How do you determine what’s right and wrong - don’t tell me the Holy Spirit convicts your heart and tells you individually, because the same claim is and has been made by those on the other side of your opinion.

How do you know that your church’s interpretations of Scripture are true? Don’t say because they go all the way back to the apostles, because the same claim is and has been made by those in the East.

 

[marywarfield]

He explicitly explains it is not as literal as you say. It is not the same blood that flowed thru the veins of our Lord as He walked the Earth or of Him who is seated at the right hand of the Father, but surely it is representative of that same blood that was shed at Calvary and bought us, and put us into one Body. Even Jesus at the last Supper after He says , “This (is) my blood” says right after , “I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God has come”. I don’t see how you can refuse the concept of symbol, or a spiritual reality or metaphor for something that is still wine. To go beyond that is to have “much words” as is when you have transubstantiation described 8 centuries later. It was not an article of faith till 13th century. This is quibling as to just what is real presence and causes unneeded division. Again Augustine, "Now, as to follow the letter (observances of baptism and communion)
and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage On Christian Doctrine, Book 3)

Not so sure. Today’s consecration prayers seem more propitiary, more OT, like what we offer to God and not what He has offered to us…For instance this consecration prayer, “Pray my brothers and sisters that out sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the Father Almighty” and we respond, “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands (the priests hands)” or “we bring these gifts to you oh God”, or “make them holy”…We know they are already holy and Calvary was accepted and we are to do it not praying about it or "hoping’ except in thanksgiving.

We do have the consecration prayer(the Lord’s words at the last supper including this is my body/blood and we do say partake only if you are in good fellowship with all members (examine yourself). Please don’t say but we only do it once a month or even just on sundays for apparently according to some here Catholics thru the ages did not partake every sunday either, and maybe only a few times in their lifetime.

Protestantism tends to ignore the Jewishness of
the Catholics other half. How to explain?
Passover for Jews was NOT symbolic. When Passover
occurs for every Jewit is as if the exodus is actually
happening this moment in time. It is if you will
a mystical time warp in which Moses is here in 2014
with us and/or we are back in the desert with Moses this
moment. Because Passover was/is happening for every
Jew then and now. There is no TIME passage. It is NOW.
What changed was the victim sacrificed. Not the re-presentation.
No longer an unblemished animal but Jesus Christ
Himself.
There was a change of Victim but the IMMEDIACY of
the event remains exactly the same. Therefore it
is perfectly appropriate that during a NT sacrifice the
Consecratory prayer should retain the OT supplication.

 

[benhur]

Arius, Nestorius and Eutachyes, et al, quoted the “Bible and the Gospels” to “prove” there heretical teachings. They were also wrong. How do you determine what’s right and wrong - don’t tell me the Holy Spirit convicts your heart and tells you individually, because the same claim is and has been made by those on the other side of your opinion.

First, the CC does not deny the conviction and teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit to all the Church, not just the leaders. Secondly, Jesus asked Peter who do you say that I am, for they were discussing a myriad of views as in some say this and some say that . The “some " is anybody and everybody, irrespective of office or position etc. The understanding is on an individual basis one can have an opinion. So Peter answered irrespective of being a disciple but as a Jew. Jesus response was that Peter had it right because of divine revelation from God…So yes tell me your divine revelation form God as to which church is right or which doctrine is right etc., etc… For you have no other hope in getting it right save that blessed revelation, that Holy Spirit conviction that you say, " don’t tell me about”.

 

[SyroMalankara]

How do you know that your church’s interpretations of Scripture are true? Don’t say because they go all the way back to the apostles, because the same claim is and has been made by those in the East.

You mean East like my Church, the Malankara (Indian) Syriac Church, based in Kerala? Of which the main bodies are Catholic or Orthodox, believing about the same on doctrine, and disagreeing on which bishop is head?

 

[SyroMalankara]

First, the CC does not deny the conviction and teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit to all the Church, not just the leaders. Secondly, Jesus asked Peter who do you say that I am, for they were discussing a myriad of views as in some say this and some say that . The “some " is anybody and everybody, irrespective of office or position etc. The understanding is on an individual basis one can have an opinion. So Peter answered irrespective of being a disciple but as a Jew. Jesus response was that Peter had it right because of divine revelation from God…So yes tell me your divine revelation form God as to which church is right or which doctrine is right etc., etc… For you have no other hope in getting it right save that blessed revelation, that Holy Spirit conviction that you say, " don’t tell me about”.

So you claim Holy Spirit conviction, Arius as well, and Eutyches, and Nestorius, and Luther, and Calvin, and Henry VIII, do you all agree with each other - I mean wouldn’t that be a given since you are all convicted by the same Holy Spirit? and your interpretations of Scripture, all unequivocally the same, no?

When’s the next (first) protestant Ecumenical Council convening? Can I observe?

 

[Koineman]

You mean East like my Church, the Malankara (Indian) Syriac Church, based in Kerala? Of which the main bodies are Catholic or Orthodox, believing about the same on doctrine, and disagreeing on which bishop is head?

“about the same”? At least you admit that there is difference in belief and interpretation of Scripture. The East rejects Original Sin; the West affirms it. The East rejects the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception; the West affirms it. The East rejects papal infallibility; the West, of course, affirms it. And then there is the pesky issue of the Filioque.

So you see, you haven’t really answered my question. Whether you belong to the East or the West, my question is equally valid, so I ask it again, this time with a slight edit:

How do you know that your church’s interpretations of Scripture are true? Don’t say because your church goes all the way back to the apostles, because the same claim is and has been made by those in the West.

 

[SyroMalankara]

“about the same”? At least you admit that there is difference in belief and interpretation of Scripture. The East rejects Original Sin; the West affirms it. The East rejects the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception; the West affirms it. The East rejects papal infallibility; the West, of course, affirms it. And then there is the pesky issue of the Filioque.

So you see, you haven’t really answered my question. Whether you belong to the East or the West, my question is equally valid, so I ask it again, this time with a slight edit:

How do you know that your church’s interpretations of Scripture are true? Don’t say because your church goes all the way back to the apostles, because the same claim is and has been made by those in the West.

Both East and West have a common understanding of what makes the Church’s interpretation correct, and that there is one True, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church. Can protestants say they are “convicted” of one true church or that there is a common understanding of what is church, or how church should come to an understanding on anything?

 

[joe371]

Both East and West have a common understanding of what makes the Church’s interpretation correct, and that there is one True, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church. Can protestants say they are “convicted” of one true church or that there is a common understanding of what is church, or how church should come to an understanding on anything?

:dts:

 

[joe371]

So you claim Holy Spirit conviction, Arius as well, and Eutyches, and Nestorius, and Luther, and Calvin, and Henry VIII, do you all agree with each other - I mean wouldn’t that be a given since you are all convicted by the same Holy Spirit? and your interpretations of Scripture, all unequivocally the same, no?

When’s the next (first) protestant Ecumenical Council convening? Can I observe?

It’s impossible to know which non-Catholic denomination holds the truth.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Both East and West have a common understanding of what makes the Church’s interpretation correct, and that there is one True, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church.

And disagree about the content of the interpretation that makes the Church correct. I fail to see how that is supposed to be superior. Don’t you guys attack non-Catholics for all agreeing that the Scripture is the final arbiter, but we disagree about what Scripture says? How is the exact same parallegal not true with your own positions?

Can protestants say they are “convicted” of one true church or that there is a common understanding of what is church, or how church should come to an understanding on anything?

Yes. Again, “Protestants” is being treated as if there is such a thing as “the Protestant church.”

 

[benhur]

So you claim Holy Spirit conviction, Arius as well, and Eutyches, and Nestorius, and Luther, and Calvin, and Henry VIII, do you all agree with each other - I mean wouldn’t that be a given since you are all convicted by the same Holy Spirit? and your interpretations of Scripture, all unequivocally the same, no?

When’s the next (first) protestant Ecumenical Council convening? Can I observe?

Well Jesus saw your problem with people thinking they were inspired yet were not. We can not assume that those people who gave their opinion on whom Jesus was would say they were not "inspired’’. That some get it wrong and are not really inspired does no make God change His mode of operendum. It’s a narrow gate. Do you want to go on record and say the Holy Spirit was not involved with your personal decision to believe in Catholicism ?
As far as councils, well many denominations do what you do, and have general assemblies amongst themselves.