Re: Protestants: How do you determine which denomination holds the truth? 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tomyris
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Code:
Well case in point I guess.......there is no authority in the Lutheran Church, as they just split and divide and start new synods and groups.....all claiming to hold the truth.
I find such a statement disrespectful to the Lutherans on this thread, and others, who have stated about themselves that they submit to the authority of the Lutheran confessions.

Just as for Catholics, the truth is not defined by those who depart from it. It would not be fair for Lutherans here to say “there is no authority in the CC because people just disregard the teachings of the Church on all these issues”.

I can’t help but think that it is heartbreaking for Lutherans to see those in their ecclesial structure falling prey to modernism. Why demoralize them further, especially when, in cases such as this, their faith is Catholic.
Please understand that it really does nothing for you to say we invented papal infallibility (which of course is false) when your own denomination has invented countless doctrines…
It does something for me, as it answers the OP and pertains to the topic of the thread. It helps me to understand what separates us.
.the confessions themselves are pure invention of doctrine separate from what was held historically and apostolic ally (although I know you claim otherwise). It is a claim without weight as it is counter to the historical evidence.
Have you read them? I think you will find that the Lutheran doctrine is much more “cathollc” than the vast majority of post Reformation ecclesial communities.

The purpose of the forum is to discuss and clarify differences, not to find fault with each other for having them.
 
there’s authority in my synod. But if you are interested in discussing divisions among Lutherans, Father K on another thread has discussed this very issue regarding Byzantine Christians, not all being in communion with each other. 🤷

Jon
I would like to read that. What is that thread called?

I think people disregarding or defying authority does not equate to not having it.
 
That’s not a fair assessment of Lutheranism. In fact about 20 years ago, the most conservative synods joined into full communion starting the CELC and more recently the more liberal synods joined into full communion with the Anglican communion. From this I know that Lutherans are very interested in unity, and not division per your claims.
I have noticed this too with Evangelical groups, collapsing smaller organizations into larger ones whereever agreement can be found. I think authority is a main issue in every case. Who is in authority, what documents or statements of faith are considered authorative, how the authority will function.

There are Catholics who are very resistant and hostile to unity also. I have met some on this forum who even defy the documents of Vatican II in this area.
I don’t think that’s a fair assessment of the questions being asked.

Are you absolutely sure that no one has asked “which church suits my lifestyle and agrees with my personal prejudice” and then joined up with the RC denomination.

Or are you absolutely sure no protestant said “which Churhc is the one that Christ established” and joined up with some protestant denomination?

I can say I know for sure of both.

Even so, many Catholics hold personal preferences and prejudices and the found the church that agrees with them.
I was baptized Catholic and became disenfranchised when I was a teen. I can say for myself I spent years wandering through Protestant communities looking for where I could best fit. I think that both of those questions were foundational for me. I did want the Truth, but I wanted it according to how I understood it to be.
In reading through this thread, and spending some time thinking on it today, I think I have some observations to share and some ideas for all to ponder relating to the topic. …

Anyway just some thoughts and I would love to hear what others think about what I said there.
I am glad that you can see this difference. Perhaps a thread addressed to Non-denoms will better reach the people you are seeking? Then again, it is very possible that you may not find these people here at CAF for the very reason you state- such things are not on their minds!
 
Code:
While I believe there's no harm in infant Baptism, I think adult is better and can in no way accept the danger of an infants soul. I believe it's superstition to believe a baby would go to hell and I think Catholics are letting go of this while maintaining their tradition.
I think the crux of the issue on infant baptism is the nature of original sin. Either we believe that humankind became separated from God at the Fall of Adam and Eve, or we don’t. And if the consequences of that Fall really are what Scripture says they are, then humankind needs to access God’s grace to be saved.

When I interact with many modern evangelicals who reject infant baptism, it inevitably leads to a deficient understanding of the nature and effects of original sin.

The other part of it is that the Apostles taught that baptism is regenerative, and most non-denoms now accept “believers baptism”, and don’t think of it as regenerative.
 
I think the crux of the issue on infant baptism is the nature of original sin. Either we believe that humankind became separated from God at the Fall of Adam and Eve, or we don’t. And if the consequences of that Fall really are what Scripture says they are, then humankind needs to access God’s grace to be saved.

When I interact with many modern evangelicals who reject infant baptism, it inevitably leads to a deficient understanding of the nature and effects of original sin.

The other part of it is that the Apostles taught that baptism is regenerative, and most non-denoms now accept “believers baptism”, and don’t think of it as regenerative.
I definitely agree.

I remember when my kids were dedicated in our Evangelical church. It was to say we would raise them in the faith but it was as ritualized as evangelical free churches get. It seemed like something that must be done, but why was sort if blurry.

Ultimately, now, I believe that we on a human level know how fallen we are. How separated from God by sin from our birth.

We know this and something in us wants that bridge gapped by our infant children.

As such I see “child dedication” as filling a very real void left by rejection of infant baptism.

I get that baptism as an adult is a wonderful experience, but that’s not a reason to deny it and the grace it brings to our kids.
 
“This is the bread that came down from heaven,” Jesus stated, “Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
It is a spiritual eating , just as surely it is a spiritually living forever for you shall surely literally die as your ancestors.
We spent some time tonight in front of the Blessed Sacrament fighting satan and his minions. Did you stand with us or against us?
Not sure how standing in front of the Remembrance table is fighting Satan unless you are having trouble "remembering’’, and yes, we do need to renew our minds daily, so we are with you in rejoicing that Satan’s blinding light has been removed and we enter into His Truth of renconciliation…Again,we "remember’’ that the battle has been won, hence we eucharist-give thanks. This is our proclamation to the world, our commission, to invite all to the Table. Don’t recall any apostle preaching the “eucharist” sacrament but for sure Christ crucified and risen (the main thing). Once you get the main thing then you eucahrist. Otherwise we are like Peter who wanted to stay at the Mount of Transfiguration, instead of getting on with business (which began not when they “eucharisted” but when they received power from on High from the Holy Ghost on Pentecost.
 
It is a spiritual eating , just as surely it is a spiritually living forever for you shall surely literally die as your ancestors.
Not sure how standing in front of the Remembrance table is fighting Satan unless you are having trouble "remembering’’, and yes, we do need to renew our minds daily, so we are with you in rejoicing that Satan’s blinding light has been removed and we enter into His Truth of renconciliation…Again,we "remember’’ that the battle has been won, hence we eucharist-give thanks. This is our proclamation to the world, our commission, to invite all to the Table. Don’t recall any apostle preaching the “eucharist” sacrament but for sure Christ crucified and risen (the main thing). Once you get the main thing then you eucahrist. Otherwise we are like Peter who wanted to stay at the Mount of Transfiguration, instead of getting on with business (which began not when they “eucharisted” but when they received power from on High from the Holy Ghost on Pentecost.
Here are some Apostolic quotes on the Eucharist. You are plain wrong and disrespectful…“profaning the body and blood of The Lord” to chock it up to a remembrance table. We can remember by reading the gospel. If that’s all it is, save the bread and give it to the poor.

THE BIBLE

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”

-1 Cor. 10:16-17

“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.”

-1 Cor. 11:23-27

THE DIDACHE

The Didache or “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” is a manuscript which was used by 2nd century bishops and priests for the instruction of catechumens. Many early Christian writers have referenced it making this document relatively easy to date.

“Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred’”.

-Ch. 9:5

“On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.’”

-Ch 14

ST. CLEMENT OF ROME (Alt)

St. Clement was the third successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome; otherwise known as the third Pope.

“Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services, and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin. For to the high priest his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed, and on Levites their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity.”

Source: St. Clement, bishop of Rome, 80 A.D., to the Corinthians

“Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices.”

Source: Letter to the Corinthians, [44,4]

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (Alt)

St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

“Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.”

-“Letter to the Ephesians”, paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.
 
I was baptized Catholic and became disenfranchised when I was a teen. I can say for myself I spent years wandering through Protestant communities looking for where I could best fit. I think that both of those questions were foundational for me. I did want the Truth, but I wanted it according to how I understood it to be.
Very honest of you to say, hence the scripture “no one seeks after God” is applicable. Yet “He draws us” and makes possible the “seek and ye shall find”.
 
Very honest of you to say, hence the scripture “no one seeks after God” is applicable. Yet “He draws us” and makes possible the “seek and ye shall find”.
I think you missed the point. 🙂
 
Not sure how standing in front of the Remembrance table is fighting Satan unless you are having trouble "remembering’’…
Not only are you bordering on showing contempt for the Catholic Church you are demonstrating your ignorance as to the Hebrew understanding of the word “remembrance”. It means to “make present”, not to take a trip back through the misty paths of our memory banks. This is what happens when one relies on their own understanding rather than submitting to the teachings of the Church which Christ founded.
 
Here are some Apostolic quotes on the Eucharist.
Here’s another one (to be controversial):

… Give us this day our supersubstantial bread.

I think we should begin a drive to restore the translation of this petition in the Lord’s Prayer to that which St. Jerome used, and which matches the Greek more precisely.
 
Not only are you bordering on showing contempt for the Catholic Church you are demonstrating your ignorance as to the Hebrew understanding of the word “remembrance”. It means to “make present”, not to take a trip back through the misty paths of our memory banks. This is what happens when one relies on their own understanding rather than submitting to the teachings of the Church which Christ founded.
Steve, I think we have been over this . Remembering is making present the past, semantically speaking, even in Hebrew. Hence for Passover they use words like "token’’. When they “remembered” their deceased forefathers or family, they did not mean bring them physically back to this side of life for our eyes to see, nose to smell and hands/arms to feel, embrace. We are more than possessing animalistic senses and our spirits and souls are capable of memory being more than "misty banks’’. Capturing essence is much more beyond just the five senses.
 
Steve, I think we have been over this . Remembering is making present the past, semantically speaking, even in Hebrew. Hence for Passover they use words like "token’’. When they “remembered” their deceased forefathers or family, they did not mean bring them physically back to this side of life for our eyes to see, nose to smell and hands/arms to feel, embrace. We are more than possessing animalistic senses and our spirits and souls are capable of memory being more than "misty banks’’.
If Jesus commanded the Disciples to “do this in remembrance of me” then why get the bread out, why eat a meal? I mean we don’t recreate the whole scenario when we do it.

Couldn’t doing it in remembrance mean reading about it, or “remembering it” some other way?

Or even if the Apostles remembered it with a meal for a few years, what point is there in doing that for all time? Especially after the Gospel was written, we can just read it and remember it.

You see, if it is mere remembrance, it is the most empty ritual , ridiculous act that is so absurd.

Jesus commanded us to do much more than just remember.

The Church for 2000 years has done what he has commanded.

Only in the last 200 years or so, have people come up with and invented this outlandish notion that it is “just for remembrance” They created a empty ritual and manmade event based on their erroneous theology.

If it is just a simple remembrance…In the words of Flannery O Connor, “I say to hell with it”

Now in my words…If it is just a simple remembrance…It is a waste of food to give people “snack time” at church.
 
I think you missed the point. 🙂
Not sure I did . What was his point ? Don’t think he answered a post that said making God in our own image can occur in any “church”( even CC). He only stated it so happened for him in Protestantism, which I find understandable in line with my former statement (it can happen in any church, even CC).
 
Not sure I did . What was his point ? Don’t think he answered a post that said making God in our own image can occur in any “church”( even CC). He only stated it so happened for him in Protestantism, which I find understandable in line with my former statement (it can happen in any church, even CC).
Actually you are incorrect. In cannot happen in the Catholic Church.

Catholics must submit to the Magesterium and Doctrines of the Church. As such, the only way an individual could “make God in their own image” would be to go against what the Church holds to be true.

You see we affirm John 14, which you reject.
5 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16** And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. **The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[c] in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21 Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”
22 Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?”
23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.
25 “All this I have spoken while still with you. 26** But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. **27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.
You see, acquiescing that any church can sub come to “making God in their own image” rejects this verse.

If the Holy Spirit will teach us ALL THINGS and REMIND us of EVERYTHING Jesus taught, then the only image there can be is God’s image.

The problem with Protestantism, is they reject this verse, or mistakenly say this verse was just for the 12 apostles instead of the Church forever. (Please note that the gift is given to them “forever” not just until they die a few years later.
 
Steve, I think we have been over this . Remembering is making present the past, semantically speaking, even in Hebrew. Hence for Passover they use words like "token’’. When they “remembered” their deceased forefathers or family, they did not mean bring them physically back to this side of life for our eyes to see, nose to smell and hands/arms to feel, embrace. We are more than possessing animalistic senses and our spirits and souls are capable of memory being more than "misty banks’’. Capturing essence is much more beyond just the five senses.
Please do not put words in my mouth in order to make your point. I have said nothing of the sort. Our five senses cannot recognize the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus when given to us under the appearance of bread and wine, therefore I have never proposed what you are arguing against.

When we “remember” Christ in the Eucharist, we are not bringing Christ back to this side of life. He is already on this side of life. Rather we are transported to the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. When we receive the Eucharist we are standing under the cross, really, mysteriously, but not metaphorically. It is an eternal event that is offered to the Father from the rising of the sun to its setting and all of the angels and saints in heaven are present with us when Christ’s holy sacrifice is offered. The Son’s eternal sacrifice is made present to us and we participate in it as the Body of Christ.

Now, based upon what I have really said, please continue.
 
If Jesus commanded the Disciples to “do this in remembrance of me” then why get the bread out, why eat a meal? I mean we don’t recreate the whole scenario when we do it.

Couldn’t doing it in remembrance mean reading about it, or “remembering it” some other way?

Or even if the Apostles remembered it with a meal for a few years, what point is there in doing that for all time? Especially after the Gospel was written, we can just read it and remember it.

You see, if it is mere remembrance, it is the most empty ritual , ridiculous act that is so absurd.

Jesus commanded us to do much more than just remember.

The Church for 2000 years has done what he has commanded.

Only in the last 200 years or so, have people come up with and invented this outlandish notion that it is “just for remembrance” They created a empty ritual and manmade event based on their erroneous theology.

If it is just a simple remembrance…In the words of Flannery O Connor, “I say to hell with it”

Now in my words…If it is just a simple remembrance…It is a waste of food to give people “snack time” at church.
Agreed we can remember many ways, even corporately as in reading that part of the gospel as a congregation. So could OT Jews reading Exodus in the synagogue. So also having differing views on the rite/sacrament does not do away with their significance. It is not either or . For instance I do not believe in CC Immaculate Conception or Ascension but I do not say, " to hell with venerating the blessed Mary". …The Table is for us as was /is the Passover also for the Jew. It is not for the "world’ but is for us a unifying rite/sacrament. Our mission is to offer the Christ of the rite /sacrament to the world as Abraham would be a blessing to all the nations. This does not demean the rite/sacrament,.which is for our betterment. Again what is the main thing, for the Church ? What is her main “commission” ?
 
Code:
It is a spiritual eating , just as surely it is a spiritually living forever for you shall surely literally die as your ancestors.
Not sure how standing in front of the Remembrance table is fighting Satan unless you are having trouble "remembering’’, and yes, we do need to renew our minds daily, so we are with you in rejoicing that Satan’s blinding light has been removed and we enter into His Truth of renconciliation…Again,we "remember’’ that the battle has been won, hence we eucharist-give thanks.
Benhur, how do you understand the concept of anamnesis?

Maybe I just needed to keep reading, because perhaps this is the answer to my question?
Steve, I think we have been over this . Remembering is making present the past, semantically speaking, even in Hebrew. Hence for Passover they use words like "token’’. When they “remembered” their deceased forefathers or family, they did not mean bring them physically back to this side of life for our eyes to see, nose to smell and hands/arms to feel, embrace. We are more than possessing animalistic senses and our spirits and souls are capable of memory being more than "misty banks’’. Capturing essence is much more beyond just the five senses.
The Passover was a ritual enactment, designed to bring all the descendants of the first people involved in the Exodus “present” to this miraculous event.

In the same way, our ritual enactment of the Lord’s supper serves to “make present” the Cross. More specifically, we enter into becoming present at his death and resurrection through that enactment.

The reason Catholics are offended when you say "Not sure how standing in front of the Remembrance table is fighting Satan unless you are having trouble “remembering’” is because we understand the Lord’s Supper to be the Passover of the New Covenant. In it, we are present as Jesus triumphs over Satan on the cross. We enter deeply into the mystery of Jesus defeating sin and death.
 
If Jesus commanded the Disciples to “do this in remembrance of me” then why get the bread out, why eat a meal? I mean we don’t recreate the whole scenario when we do it.

You see, if it is mere remembrance, it is the most empty ritual , ridiculous act that is so absurd…

If it is just a simple remembrance…In the words of Flannery O Connor, “I say to hell with it”

Now in my words…If it is just a simple remembrance…It is a waste of food to give people “snack time” at church.
Well, Jesus did command it. Many Protestants see it as an “ordinance”, like Baptism, an activity we have been commanded to do, so it is done, even though there is no concept of grace attached to it.
 
Agreed we can remember many ways, even corporately as in reading that part of the gospel as a congregation. So could OT Jews reading Exodus in the synagogue. So also having differing views on the rite/sacrament does not do away with their significance. It is not either or . For instance I do not believe in CC Immaculate Conception or Ascension but I do not say, " to hell with venerating the blessed Mary". …The Table is for us as was /is the Passover also for the Jew. It is not for the "world’ but is for us a unifying rite/sacrament. Our mission is to offer the Christ of the rite /sacrament to the world as Abraham would be a blessing to all the nations. This does not demean the rite/sacrament,.which is for our betterment. Again what is the main thing, for the Church ? What is her main “commission” ?
Benhur I am very interested to hear your thoughts on the work of Scott Hahn on The Fourth Cup.

Scott came from an evangelical background that did not have any sacramental beliefs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top