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

[steido01]

Wow, read the above statement again! If the above were true, think of the difficulties it would produce for Christianity.

It’s this way:

In it the poster wants us to make it seem Paul is pitting apostle against apostle. Now think about it–can that be? Because by definition the apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit, their teaching was not coming from man but from the Lord, so if the apostles taught contrary to one another, God is teaching contrary to Himself! If so, we cannot trust the gospel itself and the foundations of Christianity crumble. No wonder Paul says let him be accursed.

Consider some more . What is the gospel? Where does it come from? The teaching of the apostles! *** We therefore cannot separate the gospel from the apostles***, even though that is exactly what the poster above wants us to do.

What was the gospel that was taught to the Galatians? Well, Paul says he taught it verbally. **The only way then to know this gospel is by verbal tradition. ** Where is verbal tradition found? In the apostolic churches. So who knows what Paul’s original gospel was? The apostolic churches. What movement rejects tradition? We know who they are, and they reject tradition in order to teach a different gospel. And, some of these churches are even named after the men who founded them.

Of course Paul was not referring to original apostles, he was meaning men who came after, who taught something different. And we know of many men since then who have done, and are doing, just that.

The only way? You sure the Gospel wasn’t written down?

 

[Jon_S_1]

The only way? You sure the Gospel wasn’t written down?

No the gospel preached to the Galatians was not written down. Only a later post evangelization and church founding letter.

 

[mackbrislawn]

The only way? You sure the Gospel wasn’t written down?

Yes, I’m sure… Paul clearly says that he preached the gospel to the Galatians.

He didn’t write anything to the Galatians until the wrote his letter to them. Which was after he preached to them. They already had Paul’s gospel from his mouth. Obviously, the only way the Galatians could compare a different gospel to what Paul had preached to them, was by remembering what Paul had preached.

 

[Protestor]

If it is not what I believe than it is not the true(still waiting for a sarcastic font). The truth is that this is something that is not thought about. Most protestants do not make an exclusive claim to the truth or claim that they hold the most truth. I have found that most churches think that what they believe is correct. Truth is not a word you hear at least in my circles.

 

[benhur]

As I mentioned about both Jesus and Peter being the rock, as Augustine agrees, Tertullian also teaches that Peter is the rock:

"Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the church should be built,’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven…’” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against the Heretics, 22 (c. A.D. 200).

And Ambrose teaches:

"Wherefore where Peter is the Church is…” Ambrose, Commentary on the Psalms, 40:30 (AD 395).

have to get back to you but (you dropped the rest of the quotes that bear my point)

 

[SyroMalankara]

I’ll give a concrete example of a strange man-made decisions on practice made for reasons that even those who do this, don’t even know why.

There is a protestant off-shoot of the Malankara Syriac Churches called the “Marthoma Church”, aka “Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church of Malabar”. This sect came out of the Malankara Orthodox Church and was heavily influenced by the British Anglican politicians/missionaries/revenues of the mid to late 1800s. The branch of Anglicanism and its missionaries that came to India was a mix of broad and low church. The Church of South India (Anglican) is mostly broad/low-church and is in full communion with this group, along with the rest of the Anglican Communion (although how they relate to certain contemporary issues are still up for debate, as it is among the Anglicans as a whole).

Not knowing the high-church branch of the Anglicans, and influenced by its opposition, the “Marthoma Church” dissected the Holy Qurbono (Divine Liturgy) of St. James to remove all the prayers referring to intercession of St. Mary and all the Saints, ended the monastic life, became iconoclastic in it’s early stages (although relaxing that stance more and more), allowed it’s priests to marry after ordination, using unleavened bread, removed 6 books and took on the 66 book protestant Bible and took on the doctrinal positions of low-church Anglicanism while keeping some of the externals of Syriac Traditional worship (vestments, facing East/altar when praying the Liturgy).

If one lays their Liturgy side-by-side with the Liturgy of the Syriac Orthodox/Syriac Catholic/Syro-Malankara Catholic/Malankara Orthodox, you will see a lot of similarities. One will also note some strange changes. For example: references to the Real Presence were muted so as to be acceptable to those the Calvinistic leaning, silent prayers of the priest purposefully remove references to Sacrifice and Eucharist as Christ. There are also odd eliminations like: the Trinitarian blessing of the censer omitted, thrice opening/closing of the curtain removed, homily/sermon moved to pulpit instead of Bemo, no more practice of Morning Prayer prior to Liturgy or 3 Old Testament readings, no more practice of reading the First Reading on the North side and St. Paul reading from the South, altar servers no longer wear robes, incensing methods of server eliminated, cloth covering the Eucharist made sheer/clear with a very plain cross, and more.

I asked their clergy and bishops (who are celibate by the way) why they do these half-protestant, semi-Syriac things and they have no clear answer. Then they wonder why their youth members are confused and stop attending or go elsewhere to other churches. They invite very protestant or evangelical type preachers to their churches to denounce half of their own practices since it is similar to the Tradition, yet fail to go all the way with the evangelical method either.

 

[marywarfield]

I’ll give a concrete example of a strange man-made decisions on practice made for reasons that even those who do this, don’t even know why.

There is a protestant off-shoot of the Malankara Syriac Churches called the “Marthoma Church”, aka “Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church of Malabar”. This sect came out of the Malankara Orthodox Church and was heavily influenced by the British Anglican politicians/missionaries/revenues of the mid to late 1800s. The branch of Anglicanism and its missionaries that came to India was a mix of broad and low church. The Church of South India (Anglican) is mostly broad/low-church and is in full communion with this group, along with the rest of the Anglican Communion (although how they relate to certain contemporary issues are still up for debate, as it is among the Anglicans as a whole).

Not knowing the high-church branch of the Anglicans, and influenced by its opposition, the “Marthoma Church” dissected the Holy Qurbono (Divine Liturgy) of St. James to remove all the prayers referring to intercession St. Mary and all the Saint, ended the monastic life, became iconoclastic in it’s early stages (although relaxing that stance more and more), allowed it’s priests to marry after ordination, removed 6 books and took on the 66 book protestant Bible and took on the doctrinal positions of low-church Anglicanism while keeping the externals of Syriac Tradition worship.

If one lays their Liturgy side-by-side with the Liturgy of the Syriac Orthodox/Syriac Catholic/Syro-Malankara Catholic/Malankara Orthodox, you will see a lot of similarities. One will also note some strange changes. For example: references to the Real Presence were muted so as to be acceptable to those the Calvinistic leaning, silent prayers of the priest purposefully remove references to Sacrifice and Eucharist as Christ. There are also odd eliminations like: the Trinitarian blessing of the censer omitted, thrice opening/closing of the curtain removed, homily/sermon moved to pulpit instead of Bemo, no more practice of Morning Prayer prior to Liturgy or 3 Old Testament readings, no more practice of reading the First Reading on the North side and St. Paul reading from the South, altar servers no longer wear robes, incensing methods of server eliminated, cloth covering the Eucharist made sheer/clear with a very plain cross, and more.

I asked their clergy and bishops (who are celibate by the way) why they do these half-protestant, semi-Syriac things and they have no clear answer. Then they wonder why their youth members are confused and stop attending or go elsewhere to other churches. They invite very protestant or evangelical type preachers to their churches to denounce half of their own practices since it is similar to the Tradition, yet fail to go all the way with the evangelical method either.

Wow. I read this and all I could think was:
Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don’t. Lol.

 

[rfournier103]

It is obvious that you do not have a grasp of what the early church looked like.

Is that a fact? Where may I go to learn what the Early Church looked like? So, we were all Protestant from day one?

You look at the world for a Roman Catholic world view which is what you should do. For any of your interpretations of the quoted passage you look through the lens of Catholicism but not everyone sees through that lens.

Obviously the way I look at the Bible is from the Catholic view. Why would I ever look at it another way? I am very well aware that not everyone see it the same way. That’s why sects have been splitting away from us for centuries.

The early church met underground, in homes, etc. They did so to worship, teach, preach, break bread. This was the early Church.

I think I read that in Acts, too. Do you possibly think that I believe that the Early Church was as large and widespread and as open as it is today? Heck! They didn’t even have the Bible, yet!

The good thing is despite our differences I believe we are all a part of the Body of Christ on earth. While I do not and cannot agree with you I believe you are sincere and in your understanding seeking to serve Christ and His kingdom just as I am.

Thanks for throwing me at least one bone.

The ULTIMATE separation between us is interpretation of the Bible, and WHO has the authority to interpret it.

I would also like to point out to all of the non-Catholics here that this forum is far more welcoming of non-Catholics who do NOT share our beliefs than the myriad of Protestant websites that will ban a Catholic after just one or two posts; or not even let us join in the first place.

We actually have to let YOU come to US so we can defend the Church! I welcome the debate.

 

[mackbrislawn]

It is obvious that you do not have a grasp of what the early church looked like. You look at the world for a Roman Catholic world view which is what you should do. For any of your interpretations of the quoted passage you look through the lens of catholicism but not everyone sees through that lens.The early church met underground, in homes, etc. They did so to worship, teach, preach, break bread. This was the early church.

The good thing is despite our differences I believe we are all a part of the Body of Christ on earth. While I do not and cannot agree with you I believe you are sincere and in your understanding seeking to serve Christ and His kingdom just as I am.

The early church was of course the infant church. Infants are not supposed to stay in an infant state but grow up. Grown ups look different than infants; therefore the church today is not supposed to look like the early church.

Everybody looks at scripture through a lens. It is unavoidable. The trick is to look at scripture through apostolic lenses. How do we get apostolic lenses? Well, we inherit them from the apostles themselves, through the Church the apostles founded. Another term for apostolic lenses is tradition.

It is quite understandable that when one looks at scripture through man-made lenses scripture will look different than when through apostolic lenses.

 

[joe371]

The early church was of course the infant church. Infants are not supposed to stay in an infant state but grow up. Grown ups look different than infants; therefore the church today is not supposed to look like the early church.

Everybody looks at scripture through a lens. It is unavoidable. The trick is to look at scripture through apostolic lenses. How do we get apostolic lenses? Well, we inherit them from the apostles themselves, through the Church the apostles founded. Another term for apostolic lenses is tradition.

It is quite understandable that when one looks at scripture through man-made lenses scripture will look different than when through apostolic lenses.

Well said…

 

[joe371]

Know this first hand.

 

[marywarfield]

It is obvious that you do not have a grasp of what the early church looked like. You look at the world for a Roman Catholic world view which is what you should do. For any of your interpretations of the quoted passage you look through the lens of catholicism but not everyone sees through that lens.The early church met underground, in homes, etc. They did so to worship, teach, preach, break bread. This was the early church.

The good thing is despite our differences I believe we are all a part of the Body of Christ on earth. While I do not and cannot agree with you I believe you are sincere and in your understanding seeking to serve Christ and His kingdom just as I am.

I think I have a good grasp of the Early Church. One
can read the Bible and also the first written documents
and catechism from the early Church. Also archeology
of the catacombs.
When using SS only much is missing in what
early Christians did. Such as prayers for the dead.
Unless you count 2 Maccabees purgatory is not
in SS. But the early first century Christians
prayed for the dead. Which would be from archeological
and historical evidence- indicate that they were
not interested in Sola Scriptura.
And so it goes…

 

[benhur]

Wow, read the above statement again! If the above were true, think of the difficulties it would produce for Christianity.

It’s this way:

In it the poster wants us to make it seem Paul is pitting apostle against apostle. Now think about it–can that be? Because by definition the apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit, their teaching was not coming from man but from the Lord, if the apostles taught contrary to one another, God is teaching contrary to Himself! If so, we cannot trust the gospel itself and the foundations of Christianity crumble. No wonder Paul says let him be accursed.

Consider some more . What is the gospel? Where does it come from? The teaching of the apostles! *** We therefore cannot separate the gospel from the apostles***, even though that is exactly what the poster above wants us to do.

What was the gospel that was taught to the Galatians? Well, Paul says he taught it verbally. The only way then to know this gospel is by verbal tradition. Where is verbal tradition found? In the apostolic churches. So who knows what Paul’s original gospel was? The apostolic churches. What movement rejects tradition? We know who they are, and they reject tradition in order to teach a different gospel. And, some of these churches are even named after the men who founded them.

Of course Paul was not referring to original apostles, he was meaning men who came after, who taught something different. And we know of many men since then who have done, and are doing, just that.

You said the only way to know the gospel is by verbal tradition. Really ? Show me a way to know it an I will show you a way not to know it. For men have heard the right tradition ,read the right scriptures, read the councilor decrees, papal decrees and not seen the truth, even gone the other way. Thankfully we have a good shepherd, one who teaches us and we know his voice. His voice discerns the verbal tradition, the scriptures, the councils and decrees. His voice gives the evidence and is the evidence, the substance of our faith.

 

[Jon_S_1]

You said the only way to know the gospel is by verbal tradition. Really ? Show me a way to know it an I will show you a way not to know it. For men have heard the right tradition ,read the right scriptures, read the councilor decrees, papal decrees and not seen the truth, even gone the other way. Thankfully we have a good shepherd, one who teaches us and we know his voice. His voice discerns the verbal tradition, the scriptures, the councils and decrees. His voice gives the evidence and is the evidence, the substance of our faith.

I guess he is playing games then with all the faithful followers receiving thousands and thousands of conflicting positions regarding scripture.

 

[benhur]

I guess he is playing games then with all the faithful followers receiving thousands and thousands of conflicting positions regarding scripture.

I will hold on to my last thread even if I were last one on earth believing it. Do you gage your church by how it looks to others?

 

[Jon_S_1]

I will hold on to my last thread even if I were last one on earth believing it. Do you gage your church by how it looks to others?

I am talking about you saying that Jesus " teaches us and we know his voice. His voice discerns the verbal tradition, the scriptures, the councils and decrees. His voice gives the evidence and is the evidence, the substance of our faith."

If that is true I wonder why he is not telling me the same thing as you.

Why he’s not telling the baptist the same thing as the Methodist or the Lutherans the same as the Calvinist.

 

[benhur]

I am talking about you saying that Jesus " teaches us and we know his voice. His voice discerns the verbal tradition, the scriptures, the councils and decrees. His voice gives the evidence and is the evidence, the substance of our faith."

If that is true I wonder why he is not telling me the same thing as you.

Why he’s not telling the baptist the same thing as the Methodist or the Lutherans the same as the Calvinist.

Yes, I understand your question which veils judgement. It is like the earth gives out the same evidence, the same message as to her age, yet we come up with different conclusions. It would be like some saying they believe in carbon dating (let us assume it is an accurate message from God) but yet they come up with differing variations of same data. One could judge then carbon dating is not the best way that
God tells us the age of the Earth. I am stating God’s methodology is correct but the problem lies elsewhere . it is that the scientists have differing levels of sophistication in their" Geiger counters" . Unfortunately that is the way God set it up that by the foolishness of preaching men might be saved, that faith comes by hearing. All you are really saying is that Catholics have the same model number Geiger counter yet it is only one of many that do happen to give similar and correct results. The differences you think are monumental, even stumbling block for you against The OC or PC make you miss the point that that at least we have Geiger counters that are “plugged in” as compared to those that are still dead in their sins and have no life in them( the world). It’s like the world is picking up zero radioactivity and we pick up 9.1 to 9.9 and all Catolics pick up 9.7 and therefore the catholic counter is better, more uniform results. Again others have stated that within branches they also have uniform results. Like Assembly of God all get 9.4 and the Lutheran get 9.8 etc., etc. To the Hindu or Muslim the CC is just one more in the 9’s…and by the way the 30,000 is fallacious. it is like saying yeah look at him he is 9.799999999999999 and he is 9.78888888888 or 9.78889999976. Is God watching and will He not judge how we handle our absolute differences ? and yet who knows maybe we sharpen each other just a bit to a more correct number if only by a few decimal points.
so

 

[Jon_S_1]

Yes, I understand your question which veils judgement. It is like the earth gives out the same evidence, the same message as to her age, yet we come up with different conclusions. It would be like some saying they believe in carbon dating (let us assume it is an accurate message from God) but yet they come up with differing variations of same data. One could judge then carbon dating is not the best way that
God tells us the age of the Earth. I am stating God’s methodology is correct but the problem lies elsewhere . it is that the scientists have differing levels of sophistication in their" Geiger counters" . Unfortunately that is the way God set it up that by the foolishness of preaching men might be saved, that faith comes by hearing. All you are really saying is that Catholics have the same model number Geiger counter yet it is only one of many that do happen to give similar and correct results. The differences you think are monumental, even stumbling block for you against The OC or PC make you miss the point that that at least we have Geiger counters that are “plugged in” as compared to those that are still dead in their sins and have no life in them( the world). It’s like the world is picking up zero radioactivity and we pick up 9.1 to 9.9 and all Catolics pick up 9.7 and therefore the catholic counter is better, more uniform results. Again others have stated that within branches they also have uniform results. Like Assembly of God all get 9.4 and the Lutheran get 9.8 etc., etc. To the Hindu or Muslim the CC is just one more in the 9’s…and by the way the 30,000 is fallacious. it is like saying yeah look at him he is 9.799999999999999 and he is 9.78888888888 or 9.78889999976. Is God watching and will He not judge how we handle our absolute differences ? and yet who knows maybe we sharpen each other just a bit to a more correct number if only by a few decimal points.
so

This is a good example! I agree. This is why we call Protestants separated brothers and that they have some elements of the truth but we have the fullness of the truth. We want you all to have our perfectly working Geiger counter!!

We know there is a perfect one because Christ said there was so don’t settle for less!!!

Matt 16:18, Jesus establishes a church and it will not fail. A church one can go to to settle problems and disputes (Matt 18), a church with authority.

This is the Geiger Counter, perfectly working.

John 14:26

the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

This is the constant calibration to ensure it’s accuracy.

If the Holy Spirit is God and it reminds us of ALL TRUTH and ALL THINGS Christ taught. Then it means the church has not and cannot stray from that truth.

 

[benhur]

This is a good example! I agree. This is why we call Protestants separated brothers and that they have some elements of the truth but we have the fullness of the truth. We want you all to have our perfectly working Geiger counter!!

We know there is a perfect one because Christ said there was so don’t settle for less!!!

Matt 16:18, Jesus establishes a church and it will not fail. A church one can go to to settle problems and disputes (Matt 18), a church with authority.

This is the Geiger Counter, perfectly working.

John 14:26

the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

This is the constant calibration to ensure it’s accuracy.

If the Holy Spirit is God and it reminds us of ALL TRUTH and ALL THINGS Christ taught. Then it means the church has not and cannot stray from that truth.

See, I also see the geiger counter as just not in the institution but in the individual . The Father in heaven revealed the truth to Peter that Jesus was His only begotten Son, not because Peter was an apostle or an "institutional leader’, that is of the twelve apostles , but because he was an individual Jew. The revelation was irrespective of persons. The conversation was, "whom do “men say that I am”, not the Sanhedrin or Pharisees etc,. Generic men as also designated by “some” as some say this and some say that. The promise of the guidance of the Holy Spirit was just not to an institutional leader as many think. Furthermore we are all called to be disciples and have that guidance . It is like you are saying that we as lay people are part of the crowd that Jesus spoke to in parables but the church leadership are like the twelve apostles, the inner circle that Christ explained things to better. No. We are all to be disciples of “Jesus” and sit at his feet together, all the giftings and offices together. I don’t buy that only the institution and it’s leaders have a true north compass and we as lay people do not .The leaders are more mature, and in position to teach, administer and guard but we all have that same compass as God graces us. Hence the epistles of John tells us, we, (the church irrespective of persons) have an “unction form the holy one and know all things”…Now granted one may be a lousy teacher of them, or keeper of them or have a different "depth, and won’t be made a presbyter etc but one can “know”.

 

[Nicea325]

Absolutely agree to singular church, but built upon the Rock Jesus and the divine revelation leading to the believers confession as Peter did and we are in unity with Peter when we do the same, as stated by ECF’s (Augustine, Ambrose, Tertullian, Chrisostum,)

Sorry,but you are merely isolating Peter’s confession as the only evidence against Peter. You are taking the premise out-of-context with the above ECF’s who clearly did NOT reject the Primacy of Rome and there are more ECF’s who clearly believed and teach Peter IS the Rock. Does not matter how hard you want to fight it, more evidence supports the CC than any Protestant position.