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

[JonNC]

Does the LCMS hierarchy hold the same view?

 

[spina1953]

Hi ulick,

Welcome to CA. As you point out, Protestantism can trace it’s roots only back through the Reformation and the earliest Reformers. As such there is no unbroken line of succession back to the Apostles. In addition, certainly the doctrines of the Reformers are very different from that of the historic Church. Given that they all appeal to the same ‘authority’ (Scripture), which they all interpret differently, there really isn’t any way for any of those various denominations to make a claim that their particular doctrines are any more valid than those of any of the rest. This uncertainty I think leads to a reduction in the importance of doctrine overall.

Hi Jon,

The fact is that nobody knows the precise number of Protestant denominations. About all we know for sure is that the number is increasing exponentially. If the 30,000 number of a few years ago was actually correct (rather than being conservative), it would mean that, statistically, each Protestant denomination would split about every 27 years. That is what it takes to get to 30,000 in a little less than 500 years.

Given that mathematical relationship, it won’t be too many more years before Protestantism devolves into a ratio of less than 100/denomination. Logic dictates that with trend will lead to a very gradual weakening of Protestantism overall, until at some point it simply ceases to be as cultural force. Unfortunately we see this already occurring in Europe. Do you think there is any reason why we should expect to that American Protestantism will be any different?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

Hi Topper: I have to say that I myself do not know just how many denominations there are. What I do know is that when I look in the yellow pages under churches, I see so many different ones all claiming to be bible based and that they have the truth. I wonder if I was someone who had never heard of Christ and wanted to know the truth of Christianity, how would I know when there are so many different denominational churches out there all claiming that they have the truth. Since they all say the same thing that they are bible based and each denomination seems to have their own interpretations of what Scripture says and means, and those who come to the door trying to get one to join their church because they have the truth how is anyone to really know?

That seems to be the problem since one can certainly go to this or that church and hear what they have to say but in the end how does not know? I do not think that one can know with any certainly one will have to take it on faith or what they think might be true. One can also learn about the beliefs of what the different denominations preach, but that does not mean in any sense that it is true, one I think ends up basing it what they think they understand and decide from there. or is it who has the best argument?

 

[rcwitness]

I think a genuine Non-Catholic Christian has good obedience to their perspective leaders, yet always remembers to do so for the sake of serving the Lord.

I try to do this very thing, as I find it Apostolic.

The genuine Protestant takes it upon his own conscience and respect for the Holy Spirit in order to test the Gospel which his Church professes. He uses the Bible as the only bound and complete Universal authority. So for example, an issue like contraception can be believed by the individual as being morally wrong, yet there is no binding on each, only the Holy Spirit guiding individuals. Therefore, to declare as a Church Teaching that it is wrong, is unbiblical.

Now a genuine Catholic will not presume to be able to test the Church as a whole and its Official Deposit of Faith. Yet becomes subject to what is given to Her as Apostolic. He still has the duty and privaledge of following the Holy Spirit which comes personally to him, in order to test what behavior and teachings conform to or constitutes the Deposit of Faith.

Then, both genuine Protestant and Catholic have their Gospel to be sent out from and fulfill. My personal conviction is that the Protestant can do well in serving the Lord with the Gospel he receives, yet he is avoiding some of the struggles that the Catholic takes on himself when professing and upholding the full Deposit of Faith. The Protestant may find his niche in a ministry and do many good things in helping those in need. This is the amount of God’s will which he did accept and follow. Yet, the portion of ministry which he rejected and did not participate in is meanwhile being constantly waged against. And the world gains footholds against the whole plan of salvation in the world because of this division.

 

[Topper17]

Indeed, and every one of them is a splinter of the Church Catholic, everyone having its roots in the Catholic Church. But even though that is true, everyone of them, individually, holds a responsibility for their own actions, beliefs, and teachings. Everyone one of them hold a responsibility for being separated from their Christian brethren.
In the same way, the Catholic Church holds a responsibility for their separation, as well, from her Christian brethren.

So, the question posed by the OP applies to all of us, including Catholics. How does one determine which communion is correct in its teaching? One first has to consider if it is, in fact, an important question. For many in the pews, in all communions, it is not. They attend the church they were raised in, or their marriage brought them into, or the one they were evangelized into. And they do not consider the alternatives down the street. Further, many are emotionally tied to the church they attend. It is where their friends are, where they are spiritually attached. For these folks, the OP’s question is irrelevant.

Hi Jon,

I think that there is evidence by which people can judge which of the various communions teach God’s Absolute Truth. Personally, I went through that search for Truth more than 20 years ago. Initially I thought that I was going to discover that Protestantism was more “Biblical” than Catholicism. But of course as Protestantism has proven, if it has proven nothing else, virtually anyone can justify just about anything from their own interpretation of the Bible.

I started to turn the corner when I recognized an important fact – that the Reformation represented a huge dislocation in the doctrinal teachings of the Church. That led me to the Fathers, and the fact that their teachings are very much in line with the Catholic Church, and NOT with Protestantism. Then in researching the Reformation period, I came face to face with the astonishing claims to authority of the early Reformers, and their extreme arrogance in their defiance of the Church.

It became even more clear to me when I began to understand the denominalization caused by the Reformers, and how they had ignored the warnings of both the Church of their day but also the specific warnings of the Early Church Fathers.

“But here someone perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? **** For this reason – because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretation as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus, Appolinaris, Pricillian, another, Iovinian, Pelegius, Celestius, and another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Eccelesiastical and Catholic interpretation.” St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory, 10:27 (c. A. D. 434) NPNF 2, XI:137-138

For the record, all of those people with funny names were heretics, as virtually all Protestants would agree. It should also be noted that the followers of these people often took their names and incorporated those names into the names of their sects.

I think the final bit of evidence and logic for me was the actual results of the Reformation. In almost 2000 years the Catholic Church has managed to maintain more than half of the population of Christendom, which is extremely impressive. In the slightly less than 1000 years, the Eastern Orthodox has split into less than two dozen doctrinally independent communions. Protestantism on the other hand has fractured into an uncountable number of independent denominations in only 500 years. If the Protestant Theory of Sola Scriptura had been incorporated by the Church at Pentecost, I would think that Christianity would have been so fractured by now as to simply not exist.

While the Catholic Church does bear some of the responsibility for the Reformation, more specifically for the reasons for the anger against the Church, the Church is NOT responsible for the doctrinal challenges it suffered, nor is it responsible for the spreading of the Theory that has caused all of the doctrinal confusion – Sola Scriptura.

You suggest that the search for truth should treat ALL ‘denominations’ equally in that search and I agree. But in all honesty, Protestantism must be viewed as following the theory of Sola Scriptura, which the Catholic Church has battled for almost 2000 years, and must also be identified with the results of that theory. Sola Scriptura continues to fracture Protestantism even further, and that is NOT the responsibility of the Catholic Church.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Topper: I have to say that I myself do not know just how many denominations there are. What I do know is that when I look in the yellow pages under churches, I see so many different ones all claiming to be bible based and that they have the truth. I wonder if I was someone who had never heard of Christ and wanted to know the truth of Christianity, how would I know when there are so many different denominational churches out there all claiming that they have the truth. Since they all say the same thing that they are bible based and each denomination seems to have their own interpretations of what Scripture says and means, and those who come to the door trying to get one to join their church because they have the truth how is anyone to really know?

That seems to be the problem since one can certainly go to this or that church and hear what they have to say but in the end how does not know? I do not think that one can know with any certainly one will have to take it on faith or what they think might be true. One can also learn about the beliefs of what the different denominations preach, but that does not mean in any sense that it is true, one I think ends up basing it what they think they understand and decide from there. or is it who has the best argument?

I agree Spina,

The proof is in the pudding. The doctrinal confusion among the Sola Scriptura professing communions (and individuals) is getting worse and worse. If both Christ and the Scriptures call us to unity, including doctrinal unity, and Sola Scriptura has clearly demonstrated that it fosters ONLY division, then obviously Sola Scriptura is NOT of Christ.

People can claim that the Church teaches something different than what is ‘Scriptural’, but it is ONLY through the employment of Sola Scriptura (and probably their own personal interpretation) that they can make that claim. Therefore the claim that the Church teaches ‘incorrectly’ is based on a model of authority which has been PROVEN FAULTY.

In the analysis of Catholicism vs. Protestantism, it must be noted that the Church has NEVER “been” Sola Scriptura, but in fact has battled it from day one. The Church bears its fair share for the responsibility for dissatisfaction prior to the Reformation, but NOTHING justifies Sola Scriptura and NOTHING justifies the wholesale rejection of so many established doctrines. If abuses were the only problem, then there should have not been any rejection of doctrine. Those doctrinal issues could have been opposed from within the Church. There was absolutely NO reason to Rebel against the teachings of the Church in order to correct those abuses.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

 

[guanophore]

I, frankly, need to do a better job.

Jon

Definitely. we all fall short in many ways.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12344916]Hi Jon,

I think that there is evidence by which people can judge which of the various communions teach God’s Absolute Truth. Personally, I went through that search for Truth more than 20 years ago. Initially I thought that I was going to discover that Protestantism was more “Biblical” than Catholicism. But of course as Protestantism has proven, if it has proven nothing else, virtually anyone can justify just about anything from their own interpretation of the Bible.

Since protestantism isn’t an entity beyond a general umbrella term, I’m not surprised by your discovery. Which communion were you a part of, if I may ask?

I started to turn the corner when I recognized an important fact – that the Reformation represented a huge dislocation in the doctrinal teachings of the Church. That led me to the Fathers, and the fact that their teachings are very much in line with the Catholic Church, and NOT with Protestantism. Then in researching the Reformation period, I came face to face with the astonishing claims to authority of the early Reformers, and their extreme arrogance in their defiance of the Church.

I have found that, in many ways, the Fathers also confirm our belief, and please recognize how many times you used “I” and “me” in this. Is this not "personal interpretation on your part? No matter, you’ve done what millions of thinking Christians do all the time, those Christians in the category I mentioned in my previous post, the ones who actually consider this question by the OP. No criticism here on the choice you’ve made.

For the record, all of those people with funny names were heretics, as virtually all Protestants would agree. It should also be noted that the followers of these people often took their names and incorporated those names into the names of their sects.

That the name we use was given to us as a slur, similar to “Roman” Catholic, plays a part in this. That we, and you, accepted those attempts at insults seems parallel. Further, I doubt highly that anyone chooses a communion because of the name it has on the door, if they are actually thinking about the issue.

I think the final bit of evidence and logic for me was the actual results of the Reformation. In almost 2000 years the Catholic Church has managed to maintain more than half of the population of Christendom, which is extremely impressive. ** In the slightly less than 1000 years, the Eastern Orthodox has split into less than two dozen doctrinally independent communions.**

My suspicion is that Orthodox would not view it this way. Are you speaking of autocephalous churches, or did you have in mind other spliter communions.

Protestantism on the other hand has fractured into an uncountable number of independent denominations in only 500 years. If the Protestant Theory of Sola Scriptura had been incorporated by the Church at Pentecost, I would think that Christianity would have been so fractured by now as to simply not exist.

Protestantism doesn’t exist, except in name form, and never really has. But I understand your point. The western Church has been burdened by division, and considering your comments about the EO, it makes one think, if the numbers of divisions that have occurred should be a determining factor, why would anyone contemplating a change in communion consider a western communion, including the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome?

While the Catholic Church does bear some of the responsibility for the Reformation, more specifically for the reasons for the anger against the Church, the Church is NOT responsible for the doctrinal challenges it suffered, nor is it responsible for the spreading of the Theory that has caused all of the doctrinal confusion – Sola Scriptura.

It certainly does bear some responsibility. If the Catholic Church was allowing its schools and teachers to teach things not in keeping with Catholic doctrine (Ockhamism?), they fairly well do hold some of the blame.

**You suggest that the search for truth should treat ALL ‘denominations’ equally in that search and I agree. ** But in all honesty, Protestantism must be viewed as following the theory of Sola Scriptura, which the Catholic Church has battled for almost 2000 years, and must also be identified with the results of that theory. Sola Scriptura continues to fracture Protestantism even further, and that is NOT the responsibility of the Catholic Church.

Actually, I didn’t suggest that. I don’t think it necessary to consider all communions on an equal footing. As a member of a sacramental, liturgical tradition, I would not from the start consider communions that do not believe in Baptismal regeneration, etc. to be on an equal footing (I would suspect others coming from non-sacramental churches might feel the same in reverse).
It clearly is the responsibility of the Catholic Church, in the sense that, had the Church Catholic remained united, where there had been no disagreement regarding the meaning of the councils, then Luther’s charge that councils and popes contradict each other could not have been made.
No hands are clean in our division.

Jon

 

[bibledeception]

it is RARE to find a catholic mass or a congregation where the power of the Holy Spirit is present–

at least in a non catholic service-- when there is NO charisma or spiritual presence-- they can tell the difference–

and the catholic – mass has the “real presence” in it’s communion service

or maybe they can’t so then they become – a catholic revert - or go thru the class to become a catholic… becaseu the ceremony and ritual is satisfying to the senses

1 Corinthians 2:4 My message and my preaching were not …by human words

I didn’t speak my message with persuasive intellectual arguments. I spoke my message with a show of spiritual power …

. It is not improbable that the almost total and deeply discouraging want of success of

St. Paul in preaching at Athens had … in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance.

1 Corinthians 2:4

My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power,

I don’t think Saint paul would say that the "proof is in the PUDDING"

I agree Spina,

The proof is in the pudding.

1… The doctrinal confusion among the Sola Scriptura professing communions (and individuals) is getting worse and worse.

2… If both Christ and the Scriptures call us to unity, including doctrinal unity, and Sola Scriptura has clearly demonstrated that it fosters ONLY division,

3…then obviously Sola Scriptura is NOT of Christ.

4…People can claim that the Church teaches something different than what is ‘Scriptural’,

5…but it is ONLY through the employment of Sola Scriptura

6…(and probably their own personal interpretation) that they can make that claim.

Therefore the claim that

7… the Church teaches ‘incorrectly’ is based on a model of authority which has been PROVEN FAULTY.

In the analysis of Catholicism vs. Protestantism,

it must be noted that the Church has NEVER “been” Sola Scriptura,

but in fact has battled it from day one.

The Church bears its fair share for the responsibility for dissatisfaction prior to the Reformation, but

8…NOTHING justifies Sola Scriptura and

9… NOTHING justifies the wholesale rejection of so many established doctrines.

If abuses were the only problem, then there should have not been any rejection of doctrine.

Those doctrinal issues could have been opposed from within the Church.

10…There was absolutely NO reason to Rebel against the teachings of the Church in order to correct those abuses.

God Bless You Spina, Topper

 

[Jon_S_1]

bibledeception:
Your post is a violation of the forum rules. It’s been reported.

Posts like yours show nothing but complete ignorance.

You born again fundamentalists really need to learn that most Catholics know more about your false man made religion than you do.

You really need to not worry about us Christians who belong to the church founded by Christ and have the Holy Spirit in a real tangible and indelible way.

Please do not post such NONESENSE on my threads any more.

Thanks,

Jon S (former “born again” fundamentalist)

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Since protestantism isn’t an entity beyond a general umbrella term, I’m not surprised by your discovery. Which communion were you a part of, if I may ask?

Actually I am explaining the process that I undertook to decide whether the God’s Absolute Truth was to be found in the Catholic Church or in Protestantism. The first thing I had to do was decide among the two, being fully aware that if I concluded that I needed to be a Protestant, I would have to then sift through the uncountable number of competing communions.

I have found that, in many ways, the Fathers also confirm our belief, and please recognize how many times you used “I” and “me” in this. Is this not "personal interpretation on your part? No matter, you’ve done what millions of thinking Christians do all the time, those Christians in the category I mentioned in my previous post, the ones who actually consider this question by the OP. No criticism here on the choice you’ve made.

It was at that time a personal decision making process, and thus it was I and me who had to make it. I fully understand the point that you are trying to make, but the actual existence forced me to personally make that decision. That does not mean that God established thousands of competing denominations that we are supposed to choose from. The Reformation made that kind of decision a necessity – unfortunately.

As for the Fathers, I disagree. If you look at their teachings on the authority of the Church as opposed to the Sole Authority of Scripture, you will find that the Fathers were VERY Catholic and NOT at all Protestant. In fact, the Fathers are very clear on that very fundamental issue.

You suggest that millions of ‘thinking Christians’ make these kinds of judgments all the time, but how can this possibly have been God’s Plan if we were called to be of one mind? Isn’t it much more likely that Christianity was more in line with God’s Plan during the first 1000 years when there was really only ONE unified Church? What is it that makes you think that all of these competing denominations with their sometimes wildly conflicting doctrinal beliefs is the way that it is ‘supposed to be’?

That the name we use was given to us as a slur, similar to “Roman” Catholic, plays a part in this. That we, and you, accepted those attempts at insults seems parallel. Further, I doubt highly that anyone chooses a communion because of the name it has on the door, if they are actually thinking about the issue.

I don’t see either term as being a slur. I am proud to be a Roman Catholic the vast majority of the Lutherans I have known are proud to be Lutherans. I do recognize when the term ‘Roman Catholic’ is meant to be a slur, but I usually just consider the source and move on. Personally, I have never considered the term ‘Lutheran’ to be a derogatory term.

Protestantism doesn’t exist, except in name form, and never really has. But I understand your point. The western Church has been burdened by division, and considering your comments about the EO, it makes one think, if the numbers of divisions that have occurred should be a determining factor, why would anyone contemplating a change in communion consider a western communion, including the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome?

As you well know, the term “Protestantism” has an actual meaning and is used by virtually all of the Scholars in the exact same way. I do realize though how many people would prefer not to be ‘included’ in the term. As for the Western Church, it was NOT ‘burdened’ by any lasting division in the first 1000 years.

As for why anyone would consider the Catholic Church? Because of the way that it has maintained unity among the 50+% which remain in the Church that Christ established at Pentecost. Contrast that with only God knows how many competing and doctrinally conflicting Protestant denominations which make up something less than 30% of Christianity. As I said earlier, Sola Scriptura is responsible for this doctrinal confusion. It was obvious right from the very beginning in the 16th century that it was going to cause disunity.

It certainly does bear some responsibility. If the Catholic Church was allowing its schools and teachers to teach things not in keeping with Catholic doctrine (Ockhamism?), they fairly well do hold some of the blame.

One of the things that Christianity has always suffered is the difficulty in keeping the so called intellectual in line doctrinally. The 16th century is a perfect example of this problem. The fact that this has occurred throughout history though hardly justifies the doctrinal Rebellion.

Actually, I didn’t suggest that. I don’t think it necessary to consider all communions on an equal footing. As a member of a sacramental, liturgical tradition, I would not from the start consider communions that do not believe in Baptismal regeneration, etc. to be on an equal footing (I would suspect others coming from non-sacramental churches might feel the same in reverse).

OK, but then PRIOR to your deciding to limit your search to the ‘sacramental communions’, you actually did consider the others. It’s just that you weeded them out fairly quickly.

To be continued…

 

[Topper17]

It clearly is the responsibility of the Catholic Church, in the sense that, had the Church Catholic remained united, where there had been no disagreement regarding the meaning of the councils, then Luther’s charge that councils and popes contradict each other could not have been made.
No hands are clean in our division.

True, no hands are clean. Both sides bear a portion of the responsibility. First of all, I am a little surprised that you now want to discuss Luther. As you point out, there were others who had questioned/refuted the authority of the pope and there were those who refuted the authority of Councils. Where Luther ran afoul of the Church was when (at Leipzig) he denied the authority of BOTH. That was radical, and in doing so he effectively denied the authority of ALL of the Church. So, what did he propose to replace that unifying authority? Scripture as interpreted by whoever wants to interpret it. Given the way that Sola Scriptura has resulted in such doctrinal confusion, I don’t think you can point to Luther’s position on the authority of popes/councils or of the Church as a whole as being very credible. After all, by what Authority did Luther decide that popes and councils had contradicted each other?

Jon, I have a book recommendation for you. One that I think that you would enjoy and that would help you to better understand these matters.

Anglican Professor Alister McGrath’s “Heresy, A History of Defending the Truth”.

Past that, I would like to know how you can identify which of the various competing doctrines are correct, not on any particular issue, but just in general. By what objective criteria do you recognize Scriptural Truth?

Getting back to my personal story, once I recognized that Sola Scripture does NOT work in the real world to protect the unity commanded by Christ, and in fact CANNOT work, I had no choice but to eliminate ANY and ALL Sola Scriptura communions from consideration as teaching the Truth. After all, clearly Sola Scriptura is NOT God’s Absolute Truth. To oversimplify, I decided to adhere to a teaching which actually COULD be true rather than one which is obviously NOT.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Getting back to my personal story, once I recognized that Sola Scripture does NOT work in the real world to protect the unity commanded by Christ, and in fact CANNOT work, I had no choice but to eliminate ANY and ALL Sola Scriptura communions from consideration as teaching the Truth. After all, clearly Sola Scriptura is NOT God’s Absolute Truth. To oversimplify, I decided to adhere to a teaching which actually COULD be true rather than one which is obviously NOT.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

Topper,

I found myself in that same position after years of reading Scriptures, Church history, theology, and talking with several Pastors/Priests.

I reached the same conclusion. Sola Scriptura doesn’t work, once that was clear I couldn’t be dishonest to myself and my Faith.

On that same token, if I am to be completely honest, there are elements of Catholicism which I don’t think should have been developed so much and/or so drastically. I understand the historical context of them but… I decided to yield, nonetheless.

I believe there are many others that find themselves in the same position and reach an *impasse * and they decide to remain where they are and see how things progress.

Going back to the OP. I think that Protestants agree that Scriptures are true but that there is always a margin of error in our interpretation of them. As such, the margin of error becomes secondary and all that matters is to believe and live a Christian life. We believe the same really. There are as many Catholics who are not aware of the actually Church teachings and history as there are Protestants that are just as unaware. That doesn’t excuse anyone but it is the reality.

The hunt for truth is mostly for people like us that like to read, study and argue. Not necessarily in that order

 

[guanophore]

My suspicion is that Orthodox would not view it this way. Are you speaking of autocephalous churches, or did you have in mind other spliter communions.

I was wondering the same thing. What are these 20 doctrinally different divisions?

It certainly does bear some responsibility. If the Catholic Church was allowing its schools and teachers to teach things not in keeping with Catholic doctrine (Ockhamism?), they fairly well do hold some of the blame.

I think the CC responsibility is clearly seen in the documents of Trent. Many corrections and clarifications needed to be made, to stop a skid in a dangerous direction. This has always been the duty of the Church when heresies are running rampant. I don’t think they could ever imagine the splintering we see today.

It clearly is the responsibility of the Catholic Church, in the sense that, had the Church Catholic remained united, where there had been no disagreement regarding the meaning of the councils, then Luther’s charge that councils and popes contradict each other could not have been made.
No hands are clean in our division.

Jon

It is significant that, prior to Luther, persons having differing ideas or promoting similar doctrines and movements, like the Albigensians and Hussites, were wiped out/defeated. The Church tried the same methods at the time of the Reformation, but it backfired. Instead of eliminating heterodoxy, more was produced. And, as you have noted, we now have non-liturgical, non-sacramental communions that continue to splinter.

In response to the OP, it does not seem to me that Protestants actually investigate “denominations” for holding the truth. I think it is more a manner of looking for a congregation that holds most closely to their conception of the Bible. I remember when I was in college, many of the people in my Christian fellowship really did not care where they went to church, and had no interest in a denomination, but just looked for a bible based and welcoming community. This is why I think non-denoms are so popular.

 

[guanophore]

That does not mean that God established thousands of competing denominations that we are supposed to choose from. The Reformation made that kind of decision a necessity – unfortunately.

I don’t think anyone was claiming such a position. Division is a consequence of human sin.

You suggest that millions of ‘thinking Christians’ make these kinds of judgments all the time, but how can this possibly have been God’s Plan if we were called to be of one mind?

It sounds like you are trying to assign this position to Jon, then debate the position you have assigned. There is a name for that technique.

Isn’t it much more likely that Christianity was more in line with God’s Plan during the first 1000 years when there was really only ONE unified Church? What is it that makes you think that all of these competing denominations with their sometimes wildly conflicting doctrinal beliefs is the way that it is ‘supposed to be’?

This is such a blatant strawman, Topper, not worthy of your abilities.

Yes, of course the unity of the first 1000 years is the model to which we must return.

I don’t see either term as being a slur.

This is hard to believe, given all the slurring you have done upon Lutherans. But even if we don’t see these terms that way now, indeed they were such at the time they were coined.

I am proud to be a Roman Catholic

I pray that you will one day be able to carry your pride in such a manner that you need not disparage the spiritual experiences of others.

One of the things that Christianity has always suffered is the difficulty in keeping the so called intellectual in line doctrinally. The 16th century is a perfect example of this problem. The fact that this has occurred throughout history though hardly justifies the doctrinal Rebellion.

No, but the Church is responsible for the flock, including the wayward sheep.

 

[Jon_S_1]

guanophore;:

In response to the OP, it does not seem to me that Protestants actually investigate “denominations” for holding the truth. I think it is more a manner of looking for a congregation that holds most closely to their conception of the Bible. I remember when I was in college, many of the people in my Christian fellowship really did not care where they went to church, and had no interest in a denomination, but just looked for a bible based and welcoming community. This is why I think non-denoms are so popular.

I think you are absolutely right. It was true for me in Protestant upbringing. I went to Baptist, evangelical, non denoms, and even Pentecostal. All that mattered was a welcoming community that gave me what I wanted.

I will admit, my question was to get the Protestants stumbling onto this page something to think about. Something that would never even cross their mind in most cases.

 

[guanophore]

I think you are absolutely right. It was true for me in Protestant upbringing. I went to Baptist, evangelical, non denoms, and even Pentecostal. All that mattered was a welcoming community that gave me what I wanted.

I will admit, my question was to get the Protestants stumbling onto this page something to think about. Something that would never even cross their mind in most cases.

While reading the thread I also remembered I have often heard this:

12 We see now through a glass in a dark manner: but then face to face. Now I know in part: but then I shall know even as I am known. (1 Co 13:12).

Used to claim that none of the denominations has all the Truth, but each has some of it, and we will not know who was right and who was wrong until it is revealed on the Last Day.

It boggles the mind that Christ would leave His One Body, the Church, with darkness in the area of doctrine.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12347772]True, no hands are clean. Both sides bear a portion of the responsibility. First of all, I am a little surprised that you now want to discuss Luther. As you point out, there were others who had questioned/refuted the authority of the pope and there were those who refuted the authority of Councils. Where Luther ran afoul of the Church was when (at Leipzig) he denied the authority of BOTH. That was radical, and in doing so he effectively denied the authority of ALL of the Church. So, what did he propose to replace that unifying authority? Scripture as interpreted by whoever wants to interpret it. Given the way that Sola Scriptura has resulted in such doctrinal confusion, I don’t think you can point to Luther’s position on the authority of popes/councils or of the Church as a whole as being very credible. After all, by what Authority did Luther decide that popes and councils had contradicted each other?

I am not willing to concede that sola scriptura is the cause of divergent beliefs. I consider that a simplistic explanation. The fact is that division had been there long before the 1500’s.
Further, to hold an opinion does not require one have authority.
Finally, I am always willing to discuss Luther’s beliefs and opinions, when its germane. What I am not willing to do is permit someone to require me to defend a Luther opinion I disagree with, or defend his bad behavior (I don’t ask Catholics to defend bad behavior in their leaders either), etc.

Jon, I have a book recommendation for you. One that I think that you would enjoy and that would help you to better understand these matters.

Anglican Professor Alister McGrath’s “Heresy, A History of Defending the Truth”.

Past that, I would like to know how you can identify which of the various competing doctrines are correct, not on any particular issue, but just in general. By what objective criteria do you recognize Scriptural Truth?

While I think I understand these matters pretty, I appreciate the recommendation.

Jon

 

[Jon_S_1]

I am not willing to concede that sola scriptura is the cause of divergent beliefs. I consider that a simplistic explanation. The fact is that division had been there long before the 1500’s.
Further, to hold an opinion does not require one have authority.
Finally, I am always willing to discuss Luther’s beliefs and opinions, when its germane. What I am not willing to do is permit someone to require me to defend a Luther opinion I disagree with, or defend his bad behavior (I don’t ask Catholics to defend bad behavior in their leaders either), etc.

While I think I understand these matters pretty, I appreciate the recommendation.

Jon

It is really beyond my comprehension that you cannot see that sola Scriptura is not the cause of divergent Christian Beliefs. Even before the reformation it was a transfer of authority from the church to scripture and personal opinion that caused heresies.

In your mind what causes this exponential growth of division if not sola Scriptura and rejection of the Church’s teaching authority??

How could there be divergent beliefs if everyone submitted to the church and her teaching authority?

 

[Jon_S_1]

I am not willing to concede that sola scriptura is the cause of divergent beliefs. I consider that a simplistic explanation. The fact is that division had been there long before the 1500’s.
Further, to hold an opinion does not require one have authority.
Finally, I am always willing to discuss Luther’s beliefs and opinions, when its germane. What I am not willing to do is permit someone to require me to defend a Luther opinion I disagree with, or defend his bad behavior (I don’t ask Catholics to defend bad behavior in their leaders either), etc.

While I think I understand these matters pretty, I appreciate the recommendation.

Jon

It is really beyond my comprehension that you cannot see that sola Scriptura is not the cause of divergent Christian Beliefs. Even before the reformation it was a transfer of authority from the church to scripture and personal opinion that caused heresies.

In your mind what causes this exponential growth of division if not sola Scriptura and rejection of the Church’s teaching authority??

How could there be divergent beliefs if everyone submitted to the church and her teaching authority?

In the words of an early church father, Ignatius of Antioch,

• “Not that I have found any division among you, but exceeding purity. For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, and they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ].” -Epistle to the Philippians Chapter III 107 AD

“In like manner let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the Apostles.” -Epistle to the Trallians Chapter III 107AD

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” -Epistle to the Smyrenaens Chapter VIII 107AD

Now how can such a respect to the authorities in the church, be reconciled with the idea of sola Scriptura, and the idea that how I interpret the Bible is supreme?

 

[Tomster]

Haha me too.

Haha! Me three.