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

[Jon_S_1]

This is nothing different than what a Baptist would say. They just locate the church in a different place than you. Absent from this passage is anything about a papacy, magisterium, successors, infallibility, Rome, et al.

As a former baptist. They may try but it fails.

I had a major dispute with my wife that led to our divorce. She fell into a Christian cult and when we went to our church all they were willing to do was offer is counseling. Further my ex wife simply said they were wrong and the cult was right.

Such is the case with all denominations that hold a view of an “invisible church”.

If you disagree you just go to the real church down the road.

If there had been one church, it would have been clear she was choosing to no longer follow Christ.

Instead it was just a swath of opinions to choose from. No one having more authority than another.

You see your arguments are fine on paper, but when it gets down to real people needing real guidance and authority it utterly fails.

 

[Per_Crucem]

For me personally no. I saw the historical basis for the Catholic Church. I also saw that the Catholic Church that has a way of implementing Matt 18 and has from the beginning.

This is still personal arbitration. There’s no way to escape a subjective element to any decision.

Or are you saying that those who examine history and see the Orthodox Church are just believing what they want to believe and are simply deluded, whereas you are following the real evidence? A bit arrogant.

 

[Koineman]

I’m assuming you are referring to this:

Even if there were no problems in this reply, it actually doesn’t even answer my question. I didn’t ask you if they have a common understanding of how to interpret correctly. I asked you how you know your church’s interpretation is correct. That’s a fair question, since you asked me how I determine what’s right and wrong. How can you look at the speck in my eye without first removing the plank from your own eye?

You still haven’t answered my question. All you’ve done is say that your church is in communion with Rome and you agree those doctrines are not heretical. So what? If your church is in communion with Rome, the East disagrees with you vehemently about the issues I listed. How do you personally know your church’s interpretations of these issues are correct and the East’s interpretations are wrong?

 

[Per_Crucem]

As a former baptist. They may try but it fails.

I had a major dispute with my wife that led to our divorce. She fell into a Christian cult and when we went to our church all they were willing to do was offer is counseling. Further my ex wife simply said they were wrong and the cult was right.

Such is the case with all denominations that hold a view of an “invisible church”.

If you disagree you just go to the real church down the road.

So if you disagreed with something in the Catholic Church and decided to become a sedevacantist, you’d burst into flames, or what?

 

[Jon_S_1]

This is still personal arbitration. There’s no way to escape a subjective element to any decision.

Or are you saying that those who examine history and see the Orthodox Church are just believing what they want to believe and are simply deluded, whereas you are following the real evidence? A bit arrogant.

I am getting a little tired of Protestants trying to sow more division between orthodox and Catholics. I get it, it’s in your DNA, but the orthodox are one if two lungs of the church. They are apostolic and I don’t have a problem with them at all.

I will not deny that there is an element of faith involved, that I had to choose. I sin simply saying my choice was not based on which church best fit my views. If it had been I’d be anywhere but Catholic. My choice was which church was the historical church. That church (even by secular historians) is the Catholic or Orthodox Churches. It seems the only ones trying to create a revisionist history are Protestants whose foundation is built on sand.

 

[Jon_S_1]

So if you disagreed with something in the Catholic Church and decided to become a sedevacantist, you’d burst into flames, or what?

I would be rejecting God, and I think the final destination being fiery is a possibility.

 

[believerdoc]

I think you maybe forgot to read on. Let’s move over to Matt 18;

Here we see a church with members.

A single church is mentioned.

If there is a dispute (someone claiming against what Jesus taught for example) then you go to the church with it.

The church definitively rules on the matter and if you do not submit to the authority of the church then you are thrown out of the church.

Notice the keys of binding and loosing are mentioned here to.

This means the church is visible and will last until Jesus comes back. It means the church not the scripture is the final authority.

These are the words of Christ. He did not say take it to the scriptures and whatever you interpret it to say let that settle it. No he said take it to a living voice the church!

So I ask you sir,

When did this system fail and why would almighty God let a system he created fail ?

Here I feel your logic fails you. There was no single church at this time or immediately following. There was the church at Corinth, Antioch, etc all locally controlled. Thus the various letters to the churches addressing problems particular to that church. You must also recognize that even Peter and Paul often did not agree on all matters. So the system never failed at this time; it was not established. It was not until later that the idea of single visible church developed. All of these New Testament churches were part of the universal church and not a visible church structure. So in the scripture you quoted it is referring to a church as a body of believers and not a single unified visible church.

 

[Jon_S_1]

So if you disagreed with something in the Catholic Church and decided to become a sedevacantist, you’d burst into flames, or what?

Also, the deeper point being, that if there was one church, it would be clear that she was rejecting Christian Truth for heresy.

Instead the truth lies where you want it to because that is the atmosphere Protestantism created.

 

[benjohnson]

None claim to have begun any earlier than the 15th Century

If you’re lumping us Lutherans under the umbrella of ‘Protestant’ than this is incorrect - Lutherans make a positive claim to be a valid continuation of the western church.

 

[believerdoc]

I would be rejecting God, and I think the final destination being fiery is a possibility.

From your study of scared scripture do you really believe that God would allow Jesus to endure His Passion, suffer and die for our sins, provide a way by which we can return home to Him and then reject someone for disagreeing with the Catholic Church. This is the attitude that Martin Luther found so offensive and rejected. He did not understand God as constantly punishing humankind but that God was a God of total love; a righteous judge but also a loving Father who is not willing that anyone should be lost so He provided us a way to be forgiven and come home to Him.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Here I feel your logic fails you. There was no single church at this time or immediately following. There was the church at Corinth, Antioch, etc all locally controlled. Thus the various letters to the churches addressing problems particular to that church. You must also recognize that even Peter and Paul often did not agree on all matters. So the system never failed at this time; it was not established. It was not until later that the idea of single visible church developed. All of these New Testament churches were part of the universal church and not a visible church structure. So in the scripture you quoted it is referring to a church as a body of believers and not a single unified visible church.

This is factually untrue based on the New Testament.

I am fine with submitting to the authority of the diocesan bishops. (The church in Corinth , Antioch etc…). You do realize they all taught the same thing right ?

Then when there is a bigger issue (circumcision) the bishops come together under the call of Rome (Peter) and make a decision and write a letter to be taken to all the churches that tells them what to teach!!

This notion that Antioch was as different from Corinth as Baptists are to Lutherans is ludicrous. The idea that Peter and Paul would be ok with the different churches teaching different truths about Christ is just insane.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I am getting a little tired of Protestants trying to sow more division between orthodox and Catholics. I get it, it’s in your DNA, but the orthodox are one if two lungs of the church. They are apostolic and I don’t have a problem with them at all.

Uhm LOL…you had the division 500 years before “Protestantism.” The fact is, to them, you are heterodox. The two lungs theory is rejected by the Orthodox. I believe when the Pope used the term, he was referring to the Eastern Catholics. Be that as it may, if our divisions somehow disprove Protestantism, than so do divisions in the so-called apostolic churches.

I will not deny that there is an element of faith involved, that I had to choose. I sin simply saying my choice was not based on which church best fit my views.

Of course you were. You had view X of church history, church Y fit that history, so you accepted church Y. The rest of your response is blah blah triumphalism.

 

[Jon_S_1]

From your study of scared scripture do you really believe that God would allow Jesus to endure His Passion, suffer and die for our sins, provide a way by which we can return home to Him and then reject someone for disagreeing with the Catholic Church. This is the attitude that Martin Luther found so offensive and rejected. He did not understand God as constantly punishing humankind but that God was a God of total love; a righteous judge but also a loving Father who is not willing that anyone should be lost so He provided us a way to be forgiven and come home to Him.

Now, it is not so clear. People sincerely follow God and submit to him as best as they are taught. I am not about to say all Protestants are in hell, nor will the Catholic Church. It is clear though from the words of Christ, that the church has this authority and if you don’t listen to the church then cut them off.

That’s what Jesus says, but you leave an exception for preaching false doctrine. To you the church had no authority to declare a doctrine false, nor to settle a core dispute that was sure to arise.

Such a position is contrary to Christ.

Jesus also said,

“Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

So are you listening to the apostles of Christ and their successors? Or do you reject them?

 

[Koineman]

I am getting a little tired of Protestants trying to sow more division between orthodox and Catholics. I get it, it’s in your DNA, but the orthodox are one if two lungs of the church.

That is certainly a Catholic take on the situation, but are you sure that the EOC sees it this way?

I will not deny that there is an element of faith involved, that I had to choose. I sin simply saying my choice was not based on which church best fit my views. If it had been I’d be anywhere but Catholic. My choice was which church was the historical church. That church (even by secular historians) is the Catholic or Orthodox Churches.

… which both contradict each other on important doctrinal issues. So which one is the true church? Based on the logic that drives criticism of Protestant disunity (i.e., they all contradict each other, so therefore, they cannot be the true church), the EOC and the RCC cannot both be the true church. Stop avoiding the issue and face the truth square in the face: You have the same problem that Protestants have.

 

[Jon_S_1]

That is certainly a Catholic take on the situation, but are you sure that the EOC sees it this way?

… which both contradict each other on important doctrinal issues. So which one is the true church? Based on the logic that drives criticism of Protestant disunity (i.e., they all contradict each other, so therefore, they cannot be the true church), the EOC and the RCC cannot both be the true church. Stop avoiding the issue and face the truth square in the face: You have the same problem that Protestants have.

I have talked to many orthodox in person and here. I have looked into their doctrines. You like to blow it out if proportion. No doubt their are differences. But what we have in common is so much greater.

Namely the Sacraments, and the belief that the Bible is not sole authority.

Those beliefs place them in an entirely different category than you or any other Protestant.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Uhm LOL…you had the division 500 years before “Protestantism.” The fact is, to them, you are heterodox. The two lungs theory is rejected by the Orthodox. I believe when the Pope used the term, he was referring to the Eastern Catholics. Be that as it may, if our divisions somehow disprove Protestantism, than so do divisions in the so-called apostolic churches.

Of course you were. You had view X of church history, church Y fit that history, so you accepted church Y. The rest of your response is blah blah triumphalism.

Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church have signed various agreements in regard to Eucharist, Christology, Sacraments, Liturgy, etc. The Synods have met to discuss joint practices, praxis, etc. Can this ever occur among protestants without creating a new division among those who oppose this? Is there any overall structure, or conviction that can ever sow accord as opposed to discord?
To simplify the views of the Orthodox (which Orthodox?) and say “to them, you are heterodox”, is a very very general statement which cannot be accepted. To some Eastern Orthodox, yes Catholics and Assyrians and Oriental Orthodox are heterodox; to the vast majority, at least Catholics and Orientals are not. Catholics accept Orientals and Easterners as valid, true Apostolic Churches, lacking nothing essential in unity but unity itself (the Papal ministry), Assyrians and Catholics accept each other’s Eucharist, Sacraments, and ministries, the same for most Orientals and Catholics.

There is much to be done, yet at least the basic structure and outline is there for such a dialogue and process to occur.

This can’t even continue with the Anglicans, who’s super structure was/is similar to Catholics, because they keep changing the goalposts. Heck, the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox have all but given up, they won’t even continue a dialogue with the Anglicans. Catholics have continued the dialogue but no longer toward unity, just friendly relations.

 

[Koineman]

I have talked to many orthodox in person and here. I have looked into their doctrines. You like to blow it out if proportion.

I studied the EOC myself as well as the RCC, so I’m not blowing anything out of proportion. The areas of disagreement I mentioned are HUGE issues. Go to Constantinople and tell the Patriarch that the Filioque issue is not a big deal, and see what kind of response you get.

No doubt their are differences. But what we have in common is so much greater.

Oh, I see. So what you’re saying is that some disagreement is okay? If so, that’s very interesting.

 

[Koineman]

There is much to be done, yet at least the basic structure and outline is there for such a dialogue and process to occur.

So, some disagreement is okay? When does some disagreement go beyond permissible levels and turn into the horrible problem of which you accuse Protestantism? Sorry, but the whole pot-and-kettle thing is going on here big time.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I studied the EOC myself as well as the RCC, so I’m not blowing anything out of proportion. The areas of disagreement I mentioned are HUGE issues. Go to Constantinople and tell the Patriarch that the Filioque issue is not a big deal, and see what kind of response you get.

 

[SyroMalankara]

So, some disagreement is okay? When does some disagreement go beyond permissible levels and turn into the horrible problem of which you accuse Protestantism? Sorry, but the whole pot-and-kettle thing is going on here big time.

When there is no way to resolve anything, nor even a basis on which resolution can begin to be accepted. When schism is the only solution to be had.