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

[benhur]

Amen! What I always ask my non-Catholic friends is this:

If a person who has never heard of Jesus and wants to become part of His Mystical Body-which church would he or she choose and with what certitude does he or she know it is the church Christ founded?

Evidently thousands of denominations all cannot be right or else thousands would not exist!

Yes to some it is about a church to others it is more about a Person. One becomes a part of His Mystical Body by having a saving encounter with the Person first, and not being in the right church.

 

[benhur]

Yes, I think for all intensive purposes, Protestants are a new religion.

Lutherans are the religion created by Luther
Reformed by Calvin
Anglicans by Henry VIII
Mormons by Joseph Smith
Methodist by Wesley
Baptists by Zuingli and others.

Etc etc.

The Mormons at least figured out their founder needed to be a prophet to set them aside and give them the authority other Protestants lack. But if Protestants were honest with themselves, they would acknowledge that their authority is not the Bible but their founders interpretation of the Bible.

In addition:

The Jews did not give the Samaritans any authority and they were not considered to be Jewish or allowed to worship in the temple. My reformed Jewish friends today view Christianity as one religion that “has no truth and caters to whatever people want”. When my friend told me this about Catholics it floored me! Then after digging I realized he meant Christianity in general. And he’s absolutely right. To the Jews we look like a bunch of clowns with no doctrine, no beliefs, just opinions with an occasional I Love Jesus.

Well I think you are being superflous. No, Jews look at Christians as folk who think this Jewish carpenter 2000 years ago was the Messiah-that is doctrine enough for them to judge us.

 

[benhur]

you forgot to add they start
Internet forums . but maybe Benhur has an alternative?

No alternative mw. Happy right here on CAF.

 

[adawgj]

For me, though I’m not Protestant. It’s history that helps me determine which church is the true Church. As someone who wants to be a historian, I have to look at the historical evidence. Their was a Church before there was a Bible. There were church councils before there was a Bible. A church council compiled the Bible.

 

[Jon_S_1]

For me, though I’m not Protestant. It’s history that helps me determine which church is the true Church. As someone who wants to be a historian, I have to look at the historical evidence. Their was a Church before there was a Bible. There were church councils before there was a Bible. A church council compiled the Bible.

Yes hearing essentially these words from my Protestant pastor is what cracked my paradigm.

Why should my church today look and act so very different from the church who "prayerfully discerned and was led by the spirit to compile the Bible " (my Protestant pastors words in quotes)

 

[benhur]

For me, though I’m not Protestant. It’s history that helps me determine which church is the true Church. As someone who wants to be a historian, I have to look at the historical evidence. Their was a Church before there was a Bible. There were church councils before there was a Bible. A church council compiled the Bible.

Did history finally help Peter determine whom Jesus was ?..The same thing that melts wax was hardens clay… Our predisposition /makeup color history. We are back to square one, for history helped lead to the reformation. For one person history “leads” to Catholicism. For another the same history leads to Orthodoxy or Protestantism…Of course there was a church before the NT. Of course there was one council before the NT(Jerusalem). There was a NT before any council ratification. Remember, the Jews had OT without any formal ratification till some say 100 A.D.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Did history finally help Peter determine whom Jesus was ?..The same thing that meltswax was hardens clay… Our predisposition /makeup color history. We are back to square one, for history helped lead to the reformation. For one person history “leads” to Catholicism. For another the same history leads to Orthodoxy or Protestantism…Of course there was a church before the NT. Of course there was one council before the NT(Jerusalem). There was a NT before any council ratification. Remember, the Jews had OT without any formal ratification till some say 100 A.D.

This is fundamentally incorrect.

Yes the New Testament letters were written before the councils could collect them. But the New Testament did not exist as a 27 book volume until the council declared it so. Prior to that, people used any number of books maybe 10 maybe 30 or somewhere in between.

The idea that the early church walked around with a bound and collected bible is beyond ridiculous.

 

[adawgj]

Did history finally help Peter determine whom Jesus was ?..The same thing that melts wax was hardens clay… Our predisposition /makeup color history. We are back to square one, for history helped lead to the reformation. For one person history “leads” to Catholicism. For another the same history leads to Orthodoxy or Protestantism…Of course there was a church before the NT. Of course there was one council before the NT(Jerusalem). There was a NT before any council ratification. Remember, the Jews had OT without any formal ratification till some say 100 A.D.

How would history lead one to Protestantism? Orthodoxy I understand just fine, but Protestant history begins at the reformation. Yeah that church was definitely not one of the 38,000 protestant churches. Yes and it was The Church (Catholic) that compiled the Bible through a council. The Council of Jerusalem is well described in Acts which was written around 80 A.D. and it was a Church council that determined Acts to be inspired by God.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

How would history lead one to Protestantism? Orthodoxy I understand just fine, but Protestant history begins at the reformation. Yeah that church was definitely not one of the 38,000 protestant churches. Yes and it was The Church (Catholic) that compiled the Bible through a council. The Council of Jerusalem is well described in Acts which was written around 80 A.D. and it was a Church council that determined Acts to be inspired by God.

I would argue that the center of influence, power, and control over Christianity has changed several times over the course of Christian history for a variety of reasons, and the exact nature of how a particular empire, country, or city exercises its power (and the reasons that it does so) have been somewhat fluid as well. As you mention, the Council of Jerusalem is well described in Acts- Jerusalem, of course, the holy city that the apostles spent their time and energy on initially, and for some time all Christians continued to look to it as having a special place of power and authority, as the originator and source of Christianity. Then throughout much of the first millennium, the Byzantine Empire was the most powerful center of authority in Christendom. Look to the seven ecumenical councils- Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, back to Constantinople two more times and then back to Nicea. The Byzantine Empire, parts of what would later become the Ottoman Empire and then Turkey, and portions of North Africa- these are the places where power and authority within Christianity came to dwell. But like Jerusalem before it which fell to invaders, and to some extent like the western half of the Roman Empire which also fell to invaders and kept it from being as relevant as it would have liked, North Africa and the Byzantine Empire lost much of their influence on account of Islam.

Then the bulk of power and influence in Christianity was claimed by cities on the Italian peninsula. The Protestant Reformation did much to change the nature of how that control is exercised, but Rome can still claim to have preeminence where influence and control are concerned. I guess this is the main point, though- that sort of power, influence, and control has always been something that’s moved around and been subject to change. In recent centuries (approximately two of them, perhaps one and a half) the United States of America has made great strides in closing the power gap and elevating its level of influence on global Christianity. Great powers rise and fall, and the nature of control and influence is that it changes over time. There may come a time when America clearly has more influence on Christianity than any other country in the world; there may also come a time when America becomes less influential in that sphere. It’s the same thing for Rome. You may well expect that Rome will not stop being the most powerful center of influence and control in all of Christianity within your lifetime, but you should not expect its place and its role to stay exactly unchanged. You should also not be surprised if some other part of the world becomes more powerful and influential than it currently is- I would certainly expect the USA to continue increasing its global influence while China makes a major move of its own, along with Brazil but perhaps to a lesser extent.

Rome is currently the most highly visible city in the world when it comes to power, influence, and control over global Christianity, but it was not always the most highly visible city in that regard, the nature and extent of these things has been fairly fluid, and while Rome may be the most visible city, it is not the only visible city nor is the Italian peninsula the only visible part of the world where global influence on Christianity is concerned. There are other parts of the world that deserve attention, and it may be that one of them eventually comes to deserve more attention than Rome currently commands. Also- there is nothing particularly wrong with wanting some change, or even an entire shift, in the nature or location of the central focus of Christianity. We haven’t reached a final landing point. The center of Christianity has moved before, and we were fine. At some point, it will probably move again, and it’s entirely possible that it’s started to happen already.

If there’s a way for history to lead to Protestantism, particularly an American Evangelicalism that probably has less in common with Reformed Protestantism than the Reformed have in common with Catholics- that would probably be the basic reasoning you’re looking at.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I would argue that the center of influence, power, and control over Christianity has changed several times over the course of Christian history for a variety of reasons, and the exact nature of how a particular empire, country, or city exercises its power (and the reasons that it does so) have been somewhat fluid as well. As you mention, the Council of Jerusalem is well described in Acts- Jerusalem, of course, the holy city that the apostles spent their time and energy on initially, and for some time all Christians continued to look to it as having a special place of power and authority, as the originator and source of Christianity. Then throughout much of the first millennium, the Byzantine Empire was the most powerful center of authority in Christendom. Look to the seven ecumenical councils- Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, back to Constantinople two more times and then back to Nicea. The Byzantine Empire, parts of what would later become the Ottoman Empire and then Turkey, and portions of North Africa- these are the places where power and authority within Christianity came to dwell. But like Jerusalem before it which fell to invaders, and to some extent like the western half of the Roman Empire which also fell to invaders and kept it from being as relevant as it would have liked, North Africa and the Byzantine Empire lost much of their influence on account of Islam.

Then the bulk of power and influence in Christianity was claimed by cities on the Italian peninsula. The Protestant Reformation did much to change the nature of how that control is exercised, but Rome can still claim to have preeminence where influence and control are concerned. I guess this is the main point, though- that sort of power, influence, and control has always been something that’s moved around and been subject to change. In recent centuries (approximately two of them, perhaps one and a half) the United States of America has made great strides in closing the power gap and elevating its level of influence on global Christianity. Great powers rise and fall, and the nature of control and influence is that it changes over time. There may come a time when America clearly has more influence on Christianity than any other country in the world; there may also come a time when America becomes less influential in that sphere. It’s the same thing for Rome. You may well expect that Rome will not stop being the most powerful center of influence and control in all of Christianity within your lifetime, but you should not expect its place and its role to stay exactly unchanged. You should also not be surprised if some other part of the world becomes more powerful and influential than it currently is- I would certainly expect the USA to continue increasing its global influence while China makes a major move of its own, along with Brazil but perhaps to a lesser extent.

Rome is currently the most highly visible city in the world when it comes to power, influence, and control over global Christianity, but it was not always the most highly visible city in that regard, the nature and extent of these things has been fairly fluid, and while Rome may be the most visible city, it is not the only visible city nor is the Italian peninsula the only visible part of the world where global influence on Christianity is concerned. There are other parts of the world that deserve attention, and it may be that one of them eventually comes to deserve more attention than Rome currently commands. Also- there is nothing particularly wrong with wanting some change, or even an entire shift, in the nature or location of the central focus of Christianity. We haven’t reached a final landing point. The center of Christianity has moved before, and we were fine. At some point, it will probably move again, and it’s entirely possible that it’s started to happen already.

If there’s a way for history to lead to Protestantism, particularly an American Evangelicalism that probably has less in common with Reformed Protestantism than the Reformed have in common with Catholics- that would probably be the basic reasoning you’re looking at.

This is a small snippet of the focus on “Christian sects as a soico-political organism” but nothing at all as “Church as the Mystical Body of Christ”.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

There is a difference between having theological debate and discussion within the church, and just completely recreating your own religion with some ideas taken from the church.

For example all Jews worshiped in the one temple. They had an institution whether you define it as the nation, or the prophets, or the chief priest or perhaps a combination.

But some non jewish nation who observed the practices and picked and chose some and started their own “Jewish religion” would not be considered Jewish by the Jewish people. It would be seen for the cheap copy it is and for the falsehood that it is.

Your position seems to indicate all Christian religions are equal and God sows confusion intentionally.

No God IS. GOD IS TRUTH and there is one truth. Us humans are the ones sowing confusion.

Protestants do it by trading Gods authority in his church for the Bible, denying Gods oral teaching for the written, and by relying on men instead of Christ.

I’d like to pick on one of the claims that you made just a bit- the claim that all Jews worshiped in the Temple. I don’t believe this is quite true, especially from the second century BC to the first century AD. The Essenes, while fewer in number than the Pharisees and Sadducees, were another sect of Judaism that was characterized by asceticism, voluntary poverty, daily ablution, and congregation in communal life- not in the Temple, where they were would have been most unwelcome if they had wanted to go there (which they did not), but outside of that space of worship and even outside the city of Jerusalem proper.

Some of the Essenes practiced vows of lifelong celibacy, and this sort of vow is occasionally associated with Mary- although when it is, she’s generally referred to as a Temple Virgin, which is not actually possible since the sects of the Pharisees and Sadducees are the ones that went to the Temple and these sorts of vows were not taken within those sects, only within the smaller sect that had no part in the Temple. Additionally, the Dead Sea Scrolls are widely believed to have been part of an Essene library, although there is not enough evidence to confirm or deny the extent to which the Essenes had a role in their authorship. Pliny the Elder (a first-century historian and geographer) does place the bulk of Essene activity by the Dead Sea right where the Scrolls were found 1900 years later, so that’s probably the best evidence of an association between the Essenes and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Which is the main reason why the Essenes would be of any interest to Christians. Also- and this is less well known- the Essenes had no part in Temple life, although they were a sect of Judaism (albeit a smaller and less-influential one).

I saw what you wrote at the end about what it is Protestants do, and I’m not going to touch that. I’m just going to comment on the Essenes and how they were included within Judaism while still staying outside of Temple life- and I might also mention that Temple life mainly consisted of disagreements between two sects, the Pharisees and Sadducees. It’s probably not the most important thing on the page, but it may be worth taking a closer look at for just a few minutes.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I’d like to pick on one of the claims that you made just a bit- the claim that all Jews worshiped in the Temple. I don’t believe this is quite true, especially from the second century BC to the first century AD. The Essenes, while fewer in number than the Pharisees and Sadducees, were another sect of Judaism that was characterized by asceticism, voluntary poverty, daily ablution, and congregation in communal life- not in the Temple, where they were would have been most unwelcome if they had wanted to go there (which they did not), but outside of that space of worship and even outside the city of Jerusalem proper.

Some of the Essenes practiced vows of lifelong celibacy, and this sort of vow is occasionally associated with Mary- although when it is, she’s generally referred to as a Temple Virgin, which is not actually possible since the sects of the Pharisees and Sadducees are the ones that went to the Temple and these sorts of vows were not taken within those sects, only within the smaller sect that had no part in the Temple. Additionally, the Dead Sea Scrolls are widely believed to have been part of an Essene library, although there is not enough evidence to confirm or deny the extent to which the Essenes had a role in their authorship. Pliny the Elder (a first-century historian and geographer) does place the bulk of Essene activity by the Dead Sea right where the Scrolls were found 1900 years later, so that’s probably the best evidence of an association between the Essenes and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Which is the main reason why the Essenes would be of any interest to Christians. Also- and this is less well known- the Essenes had no part in Temple life, although they were a sect of Judaism (albeit a smaller and less-influential one).

I saw what you wrote at the end about what it is Protestants do, and I’m not going to touch that. I’m just going to comment on the Essenes and how they were included within Judaism while still staying outside of Temple life- and I might also mention that Temple life mainly consisted of disagreements between two sects, the Pharisees and Sadducees. It’s probably not the most important thing on the page, but it may be worth taking a closer look at for just a few minutes.

“The Essenes would have been most unwelcome in the Temple.”

Why if they were considered a valid form of Judaism ?

Remember I am not talking influence or ideas, but valid religious practice in the eyes of God.

 

[Nicea325]

Yes to some it is about a church to others it is more about a Person. One becomes a part of His Mystical Body by having a saving encounter with the Person first, and not being in the right church.

Not exactly! Explain how one separates the Person from His own mystical body? It is about being in the right church or else Jesus would have not left one church.

 

[Nicea325]

Did history finally help Peter determine whom Jesus was ?..The same thing that melts wax was hardens clay… Our predisposition /makeup color history. We are back to square one, for history helped lead to the reformation. For one person history “leads” to Catholicism. For another the same history leads to Orthodoxy or Protestantism…Of course there was a church before the NT. Of course there was one council before the NT(Jerusalem). There was a NT before any council ratification. Remember, the Jews had OT without any formal ratification till some say 100 A.D.

Really? Provide the exact list of NT books in circulation before any council? Was it exactly identical to our NT canon?

 

[marywarfield]

“The Essenes would have been most unwelcome in the Temple.”

Why if they were considered a valid form of Judaism ?

Remember I am not talking influence or ideas, but valid religious practice in the eyes of God.

Bad news Barrett made a great post. However he is
incorrect in stating the Essenes were unwelcome in
the Temple. They MAY have been but would have had
rights to attend as a valid sect (the third largest) if
they had wanted to. But the primary reason for their
formation was they believed both Jerusalem AND
the Temple Jews were corrupt and so left Jerusalem
and did not attend Temple.

The Sect most enthusiastic about Temple were
the elitist Sadduccees.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Bad news Barrett made a great post. However he is
incorrect in stating the Essenes were unwelcome in
the Temple. They MAY have been but would have had
rights to attend as a valid sect (the third largest) if
they had wanted to. But the primary reason for their
formation was they believed both Jerusalem AND
the Temple Jews were corrupt and so left Jerusalem
and did not attend Temple.

The Sect most enthusiastic about Temple were
the elitist Sadduccees.

I would of course argue that they had no authority to do so just as Protestants had no authority to create their own religion.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Personal trespass is Matt 18 primary context. [/QLUOTE]
Primary, maybe. But not exclusive.

Here’s an example.

Jill & John are a couple, unmarried, cohabitating.

Jill becomes pregnant.

She wants an abortion.

John, a MS Lutheran (albeit not a “good” Lutheran) says absolutely not; it’s against God’s law.

Jill, an ELCA Luthran (albeit not a “good” Lutheran) says that it’s up to the woman to decide in the context of good stewardship.

Now, this IS a matter of personal trespass, is it not? John wants to protect HIS CHILD’S LIFE.

To whom do they go to decide, according to Matt 18?

 

[marywarfield]

I would of course argue that they had no authority to do so just as Protestants had no authority to create their own religion.

That’s a good question but it basically would have
been the Prime Ministers decision I think.
If he views them as a valid sect and we have no
reason to think he did, then yes they could attend
Temple.
But since Temple worship was demanded of all
Jews or at least attendance on the major festivals
one could conclude that the prime minister could
eject them if he had due to their refusal
to attend.
The Essenes also had some neo pagan and other
offshoots that were not all there as far as Judaism goes.
There was one sect led by an Essene brother called
Hemerobaptizers who among other things required
a ritual morning bath daily. In fact THEY were the ones
many fundamentalist types today consider the first
Christians cause they were nicknamed the Baptizers.
But no. They were Jews who Llike the Essenes did not
believe in a bodily resurrection just a spiritual one.

Some have identified John the
Baptist as a Hemerobaptizer. He could have been I
suppose- one who actually recognized Christ but
there is no record of that in the NT. it’s possible
I suppose.

 

[marywarfield]

benhur;11989618:

Personal trespass is Matt 18 primary context. [/QLUOTE]
Primary, maybe. But not exclusive.

Here’s an example.

Jill & John are a couple, unmarried, cohabitating.

Jill becomes pregnant.

She wants an abortion.

John, a MS Lutheran (albeit not a “good” Lutheran) says absolutely not; it’s against God’s law.

Jill, an ELCA Luthran (albeit not a “good” Lutheran) says that it’s up to the woman to decide in the context of good stewardship.

Now, this IS a matter of personal trespass, is it not? John wants to protect HIS CHILD’S LIFE.

To whom do they go to decide, according to Matt 18?

I’m going to take shot in the dark here: Judge Judy?

 

[mackbrislawn]

I would argue that the center of influence, power, and control over Christianity has changed several times over the course of Christian history for a variety of reasons, and the exact nature of how a particular empire, country, or city exercises its power (and the reasons that it does so) have been somewhat fluid as well. As you mention, the Council of Jerusalem is well described in Acts- Jerusalem, of course, the holy city that the apostles spent their time and energy on initially, and for some time all Christians continued to look to it as having a special place of power and authority, as the originator and source of Christianity. Then throughout much of the first millennium, the Byzantine Empire was the most powerful center of authority in Christendom. Look to the seven ecumenical councils- Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, back to Constantinople two more times and then back to Nicea. The Byzantine Empire, parts of what would later become the Ottoman Empire and then Turkey, and portions of North Africa- these are the places where power and authority within Christianity came to dwell. But like Jerusalem before it which fell to invaders, and to some extent like the western half of the Roman Empire which also fell to invaders and kept it from being as relevant as it would have liked, North Africa and the Byzantine Empire lost much of their influence on account of Islam.

Then the bulk of power and influence in Christianity was claimed by cities on the Italian peninsula. The Protestant Reformation did much to change the nature of how that control is exercised, but Rome can still claim to have preeminence where influence and control are concerned. I guess this is the main point, though- that sort of power, influence, and control has always been something that’s moved around and been subject to change. In recent centuries (approximately two of them, perhaps one and a half) the United States of America has made great strides in closing the power gap and elevating its level of influence on global Christianity. Great powers rise and fall, and the nature of control and influence is that it changes over time. There may come a time when America clearly has more influence on Christianity than any other country in the world; there may also come a time when America becomes less influential in that sphere. It’s the same thing for Rome. You may well expect that Rome will not stop being the most powerful center of influence and control in all of Christianity within your lifetime, but you should not expect its place and its role to stay exactly unchanged. You should also not be surprised if some other part of the world becomes more powerful and influential than it currently is- I would certainly expect the USA to continue increasing its global influence while China makes a major move of its own, along with Brazil but perhaps to a lesser extent.

Rome is currently the most highly visible city in the world when it comes to power, influence, and control over global Christianity, but it was not always the most highly visible city in that regard, the nature and extent of these things has been fairly fluid, and while Rome may be the most visible city, it is not the only visible city nor is the Italian peninsula the only visible part of the world where global influence on Christianity is concerned. There are other parts of the world that deserve attention, and it may be that one of them eventually comes to deserve more attention than Rome currently commands. Also- there is nothing particularly wrong with wanting some change, or even an entire shift, in the nature or location of the central focus of Christianity. We haven’t reached a final landing point. The center of Christianity has moved before, and we were fine. At some point, it will probably move again, and it’s entirely possible that it’s started to happen already.

If there’s a way for history to lead to Protestantism, particularly an American Evangelicalism that probably has less in common with Reformed Protestantism than the Reformed have in common with Catholics- that would probably be the basic reasoning you’re looking at.

After reading this it seems Christianity is subject to political winds. What does that say for Christianity in general?