Protestants, How do you know which one is right?

[tom4JC]

Giovanni:

I believe the word satan or devil in greek means to divide, so here is where I am going with this.
When a pack of wolves or wild beasts attack their prey when in a heard, they search out the weak and separate them from the group, thus killing the animal and devouring it, this is how I have just come to see our protestant brothers and sisters. All the different churches that have been separated from the main body, the Catholic Church, without the sacraments and many graces that we are so blessed with, thus we remain strong, and I believe they are much weaker, fighting their battles against our enemies so valiantly with so much less. I say pray for them that they may come to the full Glory of our Lord.

Peace of Christ be upon you

Just his name - Satan - has many meanings in the Bible ie, liar, deceiver, etc. One of the more critical ones though is Categero - which means to categorize. And that is just what so many of us do especially when it comes to sin - ‘Im glad I’m not as bad as that guy’ or ‘Murder is worse than stealing’ or ‘I didn’t always honor mom and dad but I never commited adultry’.

Before God, sin is sin.

This plays a big part in why ANY church is still around today - We can’t get it right. If we don’t know what we’re doing there’s no way for Satan to figure it out. If he could, he’d have destroyed the church a long time ago.

Answer this - WHY would God want to make it so difficult for the people He loves to come be with him ?
You have to do this…
You have to do that…
You must…
You can’t… OR ELSE !!

No. that’s not what he wants. He made it simple. He made it easy. He’s made a way. One way.

 

[tom4JC]

Neithan:

There’s nothing wrong with personal decisions. Without personal decisions we simply would not be persons.
The problem is private interpretation. Do you follow your own, private interpretation, or that of an authority, the Church? You need to make a personal decision between these two, but it is obviously not the personal nature of the decision itself which is the problem, rather that of the interpretation.
When I converted to Catholicism from Lutheranism, there were many Catholic doctrines which confused me, and–on the surface–seemed to contradict Scripture. Rather than rejecting them in favour of a private interpretation, I studied the Church’s interpretation further, until I understood and accepted it fully. This effect was repeated many times over, which cascaded into a general acceptance and trust in everything the Church taught. The fault lies not in making a personal agreement/decision/acceptence, but in the source of the interpretation. My entire religion is built with faith in the authority of the Church’s interpretation, not on my own private one.

Note: When I was a Lutheran, I also did not practice private interpretation. I accepted the authority of Luther, the Book of Concord, the ELCC (equivalent of ELCA in Canada) Synod, and my pastor. Not all Protestants use private judgement; Luther himself was certainly no advocate of it.

I missed something the first time I read your thread. The word ‘authority’. Is the church going to be your FINAL authority?
Is the Catechism going to be your FINAL authority? Or will the Word of God be your FINAL authority? Those are your only 3 choices.

May I suggest that you study how many times, and where, the Bible talks about ‘the Book’ and ‘Books’. In the end, you don’t want to be judged by things that have been written in ‘the Books’ about you. God is the ‘ultimate’ record keeper.

I will pray for you.

 

[AquinasXVI]

tom4JC:

I missed something the first time I read your thread. The word ‘authority’. Is the church going to be your FINAL authority?
Is the Catechism going to be your FINAL authority? Or will the Word of God be your FINAL authority? Those are your only 3 choices.

May I suggest that you study how many times, and where, the Bible talks about ‘the Book’ and ‘Books’. In the end, you don’t want to be judged by things that have been written in ‘the Books’ about you. God is the ‘ultimate’ record keeper.

I will pray for you.

Hello Tom:

Allow me to do some housecleaning. God is the authority. All Catholics know this. Christ gave jurisdiction to the 12 apostles with Peter as the leader when he said “whose sins you forgive are forgiven”, the handing of the keys of Heaven and Earth, the great commission. This is similar to the old testament Levites but with so much more. So we have this Levite like group that Christ insituted as his advocates. So the authority they are vested with allows them to write dogmatic documents. It’s organic.

Thank you.

in XT.

 

[anna1978]

Look on the bright side: with so many different religions, you’re bound to find one that suits your taste

Anna x

 

[Neithan]

tom4JC:

I missed something the first time I read your thread. The word ‘authority’. Is the church going to be your FINAL authority?
Is the Catechism going to be your FINAL authority? Or will the Word of God be your FINAL authority? Those are your only 3 choices.

May I suggest that you study how many times, and where, the Bible talks about ‘the Book’ and ‘Books’. In the end, you don’t want to be judged by things that have been written in ‘the Books’ about you. God is the ‘ultimate’ record keeper.

I will pray for you.

Hi Tom,

I’m going to just repeat what AquinasXVI stated so poignantly: God Himself is the FINAL authority, not Scripture.

I will also concede this: wherever the Church contradicts Scripture, the Church must give way. So yes, Scripture is in a sense a final *norm *of doctrine. Norma Scriptura? One of the many problems with *Sola Scriptura *is that it is impractical. The Bible requires interpretation, as witnessed by the various Christian denominations today. Who has authority to interpret the Scriptures? God. To Whom did God give this authority? To Christ. To whom did Christ give this authority? To Peter–the Rock on whom He built His Church, who possesses the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (see Matthew 16:13-19).

The Church is the authoritative interpreter of the Scriptures, because they do not interpret themselves. A private judgement Protestant, on the other hand, is making *oneself *the authoritative interpreter, *you *become the final authority. Here is a quote from an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia on this subject:

“it is illogical to base faith upon the private interpretation of a book. For faith consists in submitting; private interpretation consists in judging. In faith by hearing the last word rests with the teacher; in private judgment it rests with the reader, who submits the dead text of Scripture to a kind of post-mortem examination and delivers a verdict without appeal: he believes in himself rather than in any higher authority. But such trust in one’s own light is not faith. Private judgment is fatal to the theological virtue of faith.”

Lastly, where exactly in Scripture is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? This teaching is, in the final analysis, self-refuting.

God bless, and I will also pray for you; may the Truth enlighten us both!

 

[Ahimsa]

Neithan:

The Church is the authoritative interpreter of the Scriptures, because they do not interpret themselves. A private judgement Protestant, on the other hand, is making *oneself *the authoritative interpreter, *you *become the final authority. Here is a quote from an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia on this subject:

Greetings Neithan,

I see a small problem with your statement. Wouldn’t you say that Catholics also make themselves the authoritative interpreter? Here’s my logic:

1. “Authoritative”: Of acknowledged accuracy
2. A non-religious person reads Church history, from both a Protestant and Catholic perspective
3. The person decides that the Catholic perspective makes more sense, theologically, biblically, rationally, and spiritually.
4. The person allows faith in the Catholic perspective to grow and mature, to the point where he joins the Catholic Church.
5. Thus, the person followed his own, “authoritative” judgment, a judgment he considered “of acknowledged accuracy,” and his judgment led him to the Church.

In other words, Catholics have to trust their own judgment, their own “authoritative” judgment, when they decide that the Church is trustworthy.

 

[Neithan]

Salutations Ahimsa,

Ahimsa:

In other words, Catholics have to trust their own judgment, their own “authoritative” judgment, when they decide that the Church is trustworthy.

I answered this in my first post:

Neithan:

The fault lies not in making a personal agreement/decision/acceptence, but in the source of the interpretation.

There is nothing wrong with making personal judgments or decisions. The problem is the personal interpretation of the Bible as authoritative.
Certainly we all respect our personal judgements as authoritative, and such a judgement is required in order to decide which interpretation is correct. This decision has two choices:

1. 
   *]Church’s interpretation
   *]private interpretation
   
   Between these two a personal (private) judgment must be made obviously, that’s only logical, but when that decision is made in favour of an interpretation which is itself also private and not in agreement with any authority above oneself, therein lies the problem. The source of the Scriptural interpretation, not the source of the decision to choose said interpretation.
   
   Peace

 

[Kitty_Chan]

protestants may make their own decisions as do catholics I like that. and it is a mistake to say that protestants are running around saying what they want. When this is said, what is forgotton is ACCOUNTABILITY to each other and the church and even the church at large and most of all to God. This image of running amok is inaccurate.

Not that there is not in catholic and protestant circles those that say strange things, but one knows them by their fruit.

Protestants recoginize the Holy Trinity, God, Jesus, Holy Ghost. we are not leaving one out or whatever else, or Christ was only historical, or a thousand other things. And neither apparentely are catholics. So why fight for the power to be # 1 the only one is the One who is First and Last, Jesus.

 

[JoeyWarren]

I loved a lot of things about the Protestant Churches, they weren’t afraid to sing first off, they fellowshipped a lot more, and I loved the focus on a relationship with Jesus. However I could never reconcile such different teachings about the things I listed.

I agree with that as well. I use to be a Protestant Pentencostal, but when I started searching for the truth of all things, well…

 

[JoeyWarren]

Originally Posted by tom4JC
I missed something the first time I read your thread. The word ‘authority’. Is the church going to be your FINAL authority?
Is the Catechism going to be your FINAL authority? Or will the Word of God be your FINAL authority? Those are your only 3 choices.

There is no such thing as Ultimate Authority.

**God ** is one authority.
**Jesus(God in the Flesh) ** is another authority.
The **Written Word of God(God in the Ink) ** is another authority.
The Oral Word of God (God in the Voice) is the also another authority.

They are all equal and authoritative. One does not subjugate the other.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Kitty Chan:

So why fight for the power to be # 1 the only one is the One who is First and Last, Jesus.

It’s not a fight for power to be #1!

Do you really believe that?

My understanding is that It’s a fight to discover and reveal the Truth of all things of our Lord Jesus Chrst…

 

[JoeyWarren]

Neithan:

There is nothing wrong with making personal judgments or decisions. The problem is the personal interpretation of the Bible as authoritative.
Certainly we all respect our personal judgements as authoritative, and such a judgement is required in order to decide which interpretation is correct. This decision has two choices:

1. 
   *]Church’s interpretation
   *]private interpretation
   
   Between these two a personal (private) judgment must be made obviously, that’s only logical, but when that decision is made in favour of an interpretation which is itself also private and not in agreement with any authority above oneself, therein lies the problem. The source of the Scriptural interpretation, not the source of the decision to choose said interpretation.
   
   Peace

1. 
   BRAVO ZULU!

 

[Kitty_Chan]

JoeyWarren:

It’s not a fight for power to be #1!

Do you really believe that?

My understanding is that It’s a fight to discover and reveal the Truth of all things of our Lord Jesus Chrst…

Hmm I did not say I believed that its a power struggle, in fact I spoke against it.

I wonder where I got the idea that the catholic church is first, the only one, the rest are simply wrong, they need to become catholic to be correct with God. 1 - 1 - 1 is what Ive heard since I started lurking around here.

I dont wanna believe it, but its said so often, I think Im going to have to.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Kitty Chan:

Hmm I did not say I believed that its a power struggle, in fact I spoke against it.

I wonder where I got the idea that the catholic church is first, the only one, the rest are simply wrong, they need to become catholic to be correct with God. 1 - 1 - 1 is what Ive heard since I started lurking around here.

I dont wanna believe it, but its said so often, I think Im going to have to.

Only a thorough and detailed investigation into the history of Christianity will give you answer to that question. Like my Protestant “Church of God Bishop” brother, you can either accept history or deny it. The only problem is that once history has been presented to you and you still reject it, then on the Great Day of the Lord you will have to answer for it. That is why “Ignorance is Bliss” for the most Fundamentalists and some Evangelicals. I

These ignorants, will not attempt to delve into history because they believe they have an escape clause somewhere in the Bible that says that the Ignorant will not be held accountable. But we could also surmise that if one is made aware of the existence of History that is contrary to what one’s personal interpretation of the Holy Writ, then that person will also be held accountable for not taken action upon that revelation.

Good day…

 

[12volt_man]

"The doctrine of private judgment has resulted in an enormous number of different denominations. According to The Christian Sourcebook, there are approximately 20-30,000 denominations, with 270 new ones being formed each year. Virtually all of these are Protestant. "

With so many different protestant denominations out there, how do you know which one to follow? It seems like mass confusion to me.

First of all, I’ve seen lists of these “denominations” and many of them aren’t even Christian to begin with, so I dispute that number.

Protestants and Baptists do agree on the essentials of the faith and, for those non-essentials that we disagree on, the Bible tells us that we have the liberty to disagree over what Paul called “disputable matters”.

As long as a church holds to orthodoxy and is a healthy, well balanced, Bible teaching church, churches from anyone of a couple dozen denominations are fine, depending on what you’re comfortable with and what you believe God is calling you to do.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

JoeyWarren:

Only a thorough and detailed investigation into the history of Christianity will give you answer to that question. Like my Protestant “Church of God Bishop” brother, you can either accept history or deny it. The only problem is that once history has been presented to you and you still reject it, then on the Great Day of the Lord you will have to answer for it. That is why “Ignorance is Bliss” for the most Fundamentalists and some Evangelicals. I

These ignorants, will not attempt to delve into history because they believe they have an escape clause somewhere in the Bible that says that the Ignorant will not be held accountable. But we could also surmise that if one is made aware of the existence of History that is contrary to what one’s personal interpretation of the Holy Writ, then that person will also be held accountable for not taken action upon that revelation.

Good day…

ummm Joey you mixing me up with your bro?/ I barely know what you speak of with Church of God Bishop brother, hes a bishop? if so what if you have a problem with your brother . . . .

all I said is power struggles are wrong and Christ is the only One to Whom all knees will bow not a church, man or tradition, faith whatever. Who said ignorance is bliss not me

But yet again you bear me out when syou say the great day of the Lord and held accountable for no action on revelation that the catholic church is ummmm # 1. is that the correct answer Alex

 

[MariaG]

12volt_man:

First of all, I’ve seen lists of these “denominations” and many of them aren’t even Christian to begin with, so I dispute that number.

Protestants and Baptists do agree on the essentials of the faith and, for those non-essentials that we disagree on, the Bible tells us that we have the liberty to disagree over what Paul called “disputable matters”.

As long as a church holds to orthodoxy and is a healthy, well balanced, Bible teaching church, churches from anyone of a couple dozen denominations are fine, depending on what you’re comfortable with and what you believe God is calling you to do.

Lutherans are protestant. They do not believe in Once saved always saved.

Assembly of God are protestant. They do not believe in Once saved always saved.

Episcopalians are Protestant. They do not believe in Once saved always saved.

Anglicans are Protestant. They do not believe in Once saved always saved.

Evangelicals are Protestant. Some do not believe in Once saved always saved.

Seventh Day Adventists are Protestant. They do not believe in Once saved always saved.

Foursquares are Protestant. They do not believe in Once saved always saved.

Nazarenes are Protestant. They do not believe in Once saved always saved.

In fact, most protestants except baptist do not believe in once saved always saved. Isn’t that an “essential” to a baptist?

 

[12volt_man]

MariaG:

Lutherans are protestant. They do not believe in Once saved always saved.

Assembly of God are protestant. They do not believe in Once saved always saved.

Episcopalians are Protestant. They do not believe in Once saved always saved.

Anglicans are Protestant. They do not believe in Once saved always saved.

Evangelicals are Protestant. Some do not believe in Once saved always saved.

Seventh Day Adventists are Protestant. They do not believe in Once saved always saved.

Foursquares are Protestant. They do not believe in Once saved always saved.

Nazarenes are Protestant. They do not believe in Once saved always saved.

In fact, most protestants except baptist do not believe in once saved always saved. Isn’t that an “essential” to a baptist?

Like I said, we are united on the essentials and we are told in scripture that we have the liberty to disagree on non-essentials and should extend that liberty to others.

OSAS is a non-essential.

For the record, AoG and Nazarenes both believe in OSAS.

 

[Contarini]

12volt_man:

Like I said, we are united on the essentials and we are told in scripture that we have the liberty to disagree on non-essentials and should extend that liberty to others.

OSAS is a non-essential.

For the record, AoG and Nazarenes both believe in OSAS.

No, you are wrong. Individuals may believe in it, but it runs counter to the teachings of both denominations. I can speak from personal experience about the Nazarenes (I’ve never been a member, but I did attend a Nazarene church for a while, and many of my family members are Nazarenes, several of them pastors). I was less sure about the AoG so I checked their website, and they had a very clear statement rejecting eternal security.

As I said, you can find individuals in most evangelical denominations who believe in eternal security because it’s such a pervasive belief in American evangelicalism (especially in the South). But the Wesleyan/holiness and Pentecostal traditions uniformly reject the doctrine.

You are of course right about eternal security not being regarded as an “essential” for Christian faith on either side (though I know some Holiness folks who might think rejecting it was an essential).

Edwin

 

[Unfinished]

12volt_man:

Like I said, we are united on the essentials and we are told in scripture that we have the liberty to disagree on non-essentials and should extend that liberty to others.

OSAS is a non-essential.

For the record, AoG and Nazarenes both believe in OSAS.

I checked the index of my Bible, and I couldn’t find the table that shows the “essentials” and the “non-essentials”. Could you show it to me?

In fact, I seem to remember Jesus saying there is only one flock. (John 10:16) And since the truth will set us free (John 8:32), and the Holy Spirit guides in ALL truth (John 16:13). It seems to me there is only one truth, and it is ALL essential.

Adam

Edit: My real question is, where do you draw the line? At what YOU think is an essential? Some would argue that baptism is an essential, while others would not.