G
guanophore
Guest
I learn something new every day!
Re: Protestants: How do you determine which denomination holds the truth? 2
- Status
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
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.
First, I have noticed some heat between Catholics and Lutherans on this thread regarding this. Especially these conservative Lutherans.
It seems to me that some of the mainline protestant churches, while still having this idea of authority and historical apostolic truth as an issue, it is not quite so glaring as perhaps a non denominational or evangelical type of protestant.
For example, the Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, among a few others, in general have a pretty extensive “statement of faith” . This statement is rooted in a more historical Christianity that keeps these churches more closely linked to their roots. As such, it appears as if they have historical truth in a lot of ways to them, and they do think about this issue of authority as their churches act in an authoritarian way. The churches have leadership and synods, and ordination procedures and oversight boards that oversee the doctrinal integrity of the churches under their umbrella.
These are all things that make this question, not so glaring for such denominations. Now I will hold the issue is still clearly there, we can see that in the departure from the faith of most mainline churches, and how they have traded apostolic truths for modern popularity…all done under the framework of sola scripture. Even so, there are not just affirmations, but bounds placed on the people to be a part of these confessions. They are often more liturgical and have a link to the church in that way as well. So the issue is there, but not so glaring.
I suppose when I wrote the question I had in mind my own situation and upbringing in a more baptist/evangelical/ non denominational type of protestantism. It is this type of protestantism that this issue is much much more glaring, but the people are much much more blinded to it as it just plays no part in their individual relationship with Jesus.
I would really like these types of protestants to reflect on this question. They do not realize how much authority they give to the pastor of the individual church they belong too. By nature, pastors are teachers and spiritual guides, so individuals in their flocks are extremely vulnerable to seeing things in the light presented by the teacher/pastor. This is really a handing over of authority from the Church, from even the Bible, to the Pastor and the Pastor’'s interpretation of the Bible.
I can think of an extreme example like the Westboro Baptist Church, or perhaps Mormonism or the JHW, but I think even in the “mundane run of the mill” non denominational church, there is so much authority given to the pastor as you listen to him and are influenced by the opinions he holds. I am thinking of maybe like a Joel Olsteen or a Mark Driscoll type of church where there is doctrine, there is something there, and people buy into it completely, but never consider if it was done this way before that church was created, let alone in the early reformation years or the apostolic times. It is sort of taken for granted that this is how it is done, but it could not be further from the truth.
I know in my own journeys I could not believe how far removed I was from any semblance of Reformation era Christianity, let alone Apostolic period Christianity.
That is a problem for me, and I think it should be something every Christian should consider and have an answer for.
If you attend Mars Hill, or Calvary Chapel or the like, you should know that
a) it is a modern invention as far as how the church is run, organized, and how the service and preaching are done.
b) the doctrine presented are likely as new as the church in some sense.
c) It is completely different from how it was done for the last 1900 years plus.
SO people knowing that should know why that is. They should have good answer for why they choose something so new, and unique and different. That is what I am looking for in this thread I guess. For someone to say, I know its a new invention, but I accept it for x,y,z reasons.
Sadly, I don’t think this idea is even remotely on most of their radar’s and in their confessions and statements of faith it caters to such an environment of unknowing.
I think of the major protestant confessions, large documents, or our own Catechism which is huge and is our “statement of faith” . I think of all that is prescribed and prohibited in these types of documents and can see a living faith and a rich faith that teaches the individual how to be a Christian.
But in a lot of these other churches, the statement of faith might be 5-10 sentences of affirmations. Thats it, everything else is up for grabs, is at the discretion of the pastor to teach and at the discretion of the individual to accept. Such a loosey gooosy type of church and authority creates an atmosphere ripe for division, ripe for spiritual abuse, ripe for authority abuse by pastors and elder boards, and ripe for dilution of the apostolic faith.
Anyway just some thoughts and I would love to hear what others think about what I said there.
First, I have noticed some heat between Catholics and Lutherans on this thread regarding this. Especially these conservative Lutherans.
It seems to me that some of the mainline protestant churches, while still having this idea of authority and historical apostolic truth as an issue, it is not quite so glaring as perhaps a non denominational or evangelical type of protestant.
For example, the Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, among a few others, in general have a pretty extensive “statement of faith” . This statement is rooted in a more historical Christianity that keeps these churches more closely linked to their roots. As such, it appears as if they have historical truth in a lot of ways to them, and they do think about this issue of authority as their churches act in an authoritarian way. The churches have leadership and synods, and ordination procedures and oversight boards that oversee the doctrinal integrity of the churches under their umbrella.
These are all things that make this question, not so glaring for such denominations. Now I will hold the issue is still clearly there, we can see that in the departure from the faith of most mainline churches, and how they have traded apostolic truths for modern popularity…all done under the framework of sola scripture. Even so, there are not just affirmations, but bounds placed on the people to be a part of these confessions. They are often more liturgical and have a link to the church in that way as well. So the issue is there, but not so glaring.
I suppose when I wrote the question I had in mind my own situation and upbringing in a more baptist/evangelical/ non denominational type of protestantism. It is this type of protestantism that this issue is much much more glaring, but the people are much much more blinded to it as it just plays no part in their individual relationship with Jesus.
I would really like these types of protestants to reflect on this question. They do not realize how much authority they give to the pastor of the individual church they belong too. By nature, pastors are teachers and spiritual guides, so individuals in their flocks are extremely vulnerable to seeing things in the light presented by the teacher/pastor. This is really a handing over of authority from the Church, from even the Bible, to the Pastor and the Pastor’'s interpretation of the Bible.
I can think of an extreme example like the Westboro Baptist Church, or perhaps Mormonism or the JHW, but I think even in the “mundane run of the mill” non denominational church, there is so much authority given to the pastor as you listen to him and are influenced by the opinions he holds. I am thinking of maybe like a Joel Olsteen or a Mark Driscoll type of church where there is doctrine, there is something there, and people buy into it completely, but never consider if it was done this way before that church was created, let alone in the early reformation years or the apostolic times. It is sort of taken for granted that this is how it is done, but it could not be further from the truth.
I know in my own journeys I could not believe how far removed I was from any semblance of Reformation era Christianity, let alone Apostolic period Christianity.
That is a problem for me, and I think it should be something every Christian should consider and have an answer for.
If you attend Mars Hill, or Calvary Chapel or the like, you should know that
a) it is a modern invention as far as how the church is run, organized, and how the service and preaching are done.
b) the doctrine presented are likely as new as the church in some sense.
c) It is completely different from how it was done for the last 1900 years plus.
SO people knowing that should know why that is. They should have good answer for why they choose something so new, and unique and different. That is what I am looking for in this thread I guess. For someone to say, I know its a new invention, but I accept it for x,y,z reasons.
Sadly, I don’t think this idea is even remotely on most of their radar’s and in their confessions and statements of faith it caters to such an environment of unknowing.
I think of the major protestant confessions, large documents, or our own Catechism which is huge and is our “statement of faith” . I think of all that is prescribed and prohibited in these types of documents and can see a living faith and a rich faith that teaches the individual how to be a Christian.
But in a lot of these other churches, the statement of faith might be 5-10 sentences of affirmations. Thats it, everything else is up for grabs, is at the discretion of the pastor to teach and at the discretion of the individual to accept. Such a loosey gooosy type of church and authority creates an atmosphere ripe for division, ripe for spiritual abuse, ripe for authority abuse by pastors and elder boards, and ripe for dilution of the apostolic faith.
Anyway just some thoughts and I would love to hear what others think about what I said there.
G
guanophore
Guest
I think you would be on the same ground with the EO on these matters. If it became necessary, would you be more comfortable in an EO communion than a Roman?
D
dronald
Guest
I do think it’s humorous sometimes when Catholics have Evangelicals in mind when they say “Protestant” and get Lutherans who hold almost identical beliefs with Catholics on every point. Haha.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Hey your still around! Perhaps you could offer some of your insights!
D
dronald
Guest
Yes, I’ve been quite active here in this section. Work and my wedding planning has made it a bit tough to spend any time in the Apologetics area though.Hey your still around! Perhaps you could offer some of your insights!
In regards to your Mars Hill/personal upbringing objection, I don’t believe it’s because of the “Just the Bible and me” attitude. Although I don’t know much about Mars Hill and what their doctrines are, I believe there’s been some controversy with them. I don’t think you’re one to criticize a Christian Church based on the members within because we know that can lead to much hypocrisy.
It is often the objection of Catholics that any doctrine taught in any Evangelical Church can be justified using the Bible alone. I reject this outright. Life is sacred, homosexuality is condemned, serving money is never preached, etc.
The existence of those who claim that “God wants you to be rich” shows the falsehood of anything not Catholic isn’t a fair one I don’t believe.
Although maybe I’m missing something that you might want to ask me directly in regards to my faith?
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Yeah, my last post was a bit rambling, but I think I could say it more clearly. And in throwing out some examples of specific churches, it was more to show the influence the pastor has over the church and that that should be something people think about. Mars Hill did not exist before Driscoll, and now it does, and he leads it with what sounds like an iron fist at times, so it just seems like people should say,
“Why was Christianity so broken or wrong or lost until Mark Driscoll came along and got it all right” They should really think that way.
I know they don’t because I did not think that way when I was in the seats. I just sort of assumed that we were based on some other church and that went way back to the Reformation and I did not think at all about the pre reformation days other than to think that Christianity was I guessed lost during the Catholic era and the Reformation brought back the original apostolic truths. Interestingly enough (total rabbit trail here) but it was a mormon missionary that brought that to light with his great apostasy talk, which I completely rejected but did not know why, and then had to think about the subject and realize I had know idea about the early church and its link to me.
Anyway, back to asking you a question,
I guess I would like to ask ( and I kind of know your answer I think from past threads but will ask again anyway), You know that Evangelicalism was born in the late reformation period, that it has morphed considerably, and that your Sunday service is different than Sunday services were done for most of Christian History.
Why then, do you accept it over a more historical form of Christianity that is more consistent with the historical record of the Christian Faith?
also,
What is it that makes you think that the church you find yourself in, is the fullness of Christian Truth. That it is THE place that you should go to worship God. That they have it all squared away, their interpretation is the way it is meant to be.
Hopefully that is clear, but I know I rambled again…lots of thoughts going through the head tonight!
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Also, glad to hear things are moving forward and it seems, going well with your wedding plans and work!
D
dronald
Guest
When I had just become a Christian (about age 14) a fella was reading a Bible at an airport and I asked him about it. He handed me a book “The Great Controversy” to read on the plane. It didn’t take long for me to realize that the book was utter bullocks. My point is, it’s funny how the falsehoods in some faiths can bring you so much more faith in your own.
There have always been a difference in beliefs throughout history in Orthodoxy. As we’ve discussed, I believe it’s when the Catholic Church got all killey that the true problems arose.
I actually just posted some examples in another thread. Augustine changed views to a more “Protestant” view on who the Rock is. Tertullian had much to say about infant Baptism and why it’s less beneficial, and he also claimed to get his beliefs on Baptism from handed down Tradition!
The problem is that the Church wanted to say “This is now necessary for Salvation, and if you preach against it then you die.” However this is no longer the case; now we just all get mad at each other.
However, Pope Francis is wonderful and he inspires me much; I wish both our groups could have laity that were all Pope Francis.
What’s not needed for unity is doctrines to change, rather hearts need to change. I may never say a hail Mary, and while you’ll claim to accept that’s okay; what all Catholics should be doing is opening their arms up to the idea, while maintaining their own traditions.
Call me crazy.
I believe communion is more than knowing the mysteries of God within. That is, the Kingdom of God is more than food and drink. 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.
Likewise, we disagree on some things. So what? Let’s get together and preach Christ crucified, risen and exalted.
P
powerofk
Guest
Honestly, part of the reason is that many independent Evangelical churches are “feel good” churches. Recently, Joel Osteen’s wife was caught preaching the “prosperity gospel” - that is, believe in Jesus (the way we preach Him), and He will give you worldly riches. These churches avoid the cross, and with it, any hardship. As a person is “once saved, always saved”, once a person has “accepted Jesus Christ into his/her heart as his/her personal Lord and Savior”, there is nothing anyone can do to lose going to Heaven, as there is no such thing as mortal sin.
Unfortunately, many (though not all) of these people (just as much as Catholics who are in mortal sin) may indeed find themselves in Hell. St. Faustina, in her diary, stated that, in her visions, most of the people in Hell did not believe Hell to exist when they were alive. And the avoidance of the cross (that is, the avoidance of everyday suffering) also leads to Hell.
D
dronald
Guest
Two weeks my friend!
D
dronald
Guest
Keep in mind though that the biggest, most outspoken opponents of the prosperity gospel are Evangelicals. Most of us are pretty mad about it.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=NauXtlDLE7A
J
johnnyc176
Guest
So what? The Eucharist is the Source and Summit of the Christian life. It is pretty insulting for you to suggest that we put the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus aside (along with the Blessed Mother) in the name of unity. That would be a false unity.
P
powerofk
Guest
Of course you are! (And - to make matters clear, I’m not saying this disparigingly - I state this sincerely). The megachurches that spout the “prosperity gospel” have ended up becoming a stereotype of evangelical churches, which is not fair to most. Unfortunately, it is these churches that have the TV broadcasts today, and in most cities, one can find more baptized Catholics at megachurches than at Catholic parishes. It’s said that, if fallen-away Catholics were a denomination in and of themselves, they’d be the second-largest (if not largest) denomination of Christians in the world - or at least in the developed West (North America, Europe, & Australia).
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
I very much enjoy this post and really appreciate how you worked this question.
I think something that would help so much would be for an acknowledgement from Protestants for the need for unity.
It seems that if we all wanted to have unity and saw that as the ultimate goal, we could make far more progress. Things have just drifted so far that now the need for unity just seems so unnecessary to most Protestants.
IF we all felt the need for Christian unity, we could make more progress. If we all could have an attitude more like yours, I am sure that the kinks could be worked out.
I would have no problem with a Lutheran Ordinariate, or an Evangelical Ordinariate, or any number of others.
But I guess for that to happen, Protestants would in general have to come back to us, as opposed to us going out to them in doctrinal matters at least. For the pure reason that we hold that doctrine does not and cannot change and we are custodians of it, we must maintain the doctrine.
How the doctrine is celebrated to some extant could be laxed for different groups so they could keep their identities, but that journey to the authority of the church over a certain denomination is a hard and difficult hurdle to overcome.
And as I said, the need for it is not known or seen by most protestants.
I don’t even want to go see a thread describing the Protestant doctrines of Augustien or Tertullian! It will make me too wound up…maybe tomorrow though!
I am sure you remembered to point out that Augustine was a Bishop of the Catholic Church that celebrated mass, worked the confessional, gave last rites, laid hands on for ordination and the passing of the divine office, and was appointed by a pope, and held authority over his diocese in submission to the Bishop of Rome!
I am sure that all came up in support of your argument right!
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
That video is funny!
I really like Bill Cosby’s take on the matter though!
youtube.com/watch?v=00-6OyXVA0M
B
benhur
Guest
Who said keep the main thing the main thing ? So you think our story, and that of OT, has “communion” or "eucharist "as source and summit of our purpose, life ? Eucharist is many things but not the main thing of the “church” nor was it of "Israel’ in OT. While Eucharist may be the supreme declaration of a war already won , it is not the war itself, the war of light and darkness, and that of Reconciliation, in the power of the Holy Ghost. That is the main thing , and the “source” thereof.
D
dronald
Guest
You’re right; it’s a lack of true action on our desire. We want unity on our own terms because of our own pride.
It still boggles my mind a bit that Catholics and Orthodox are not back together, which just proves as humans that we can not do it. Only God can.
So how? Well, I have an idea that will solve everything:
And I must disagree with you that one must go to the other to solve our problems. I believe God has to bring us together, and I think I know one way it could happen.
Persecution.
breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/09/15/Saudi-Arabia-Arrests-27-Christians-at-a-Private-Home
I don’t know if these people are Catholics or Evangelicals or if by some miracle they came to know Christ. I cannot say, but how much do you truly care?
Do you think it bothers me if they are all Catholic? If most are Catholic? If two are Catholic? None? Don’t know; the articles don’t say. So what if it was me and you suffering together?
Apparently some Chinese underground Churches have members praying that we get persecuted. I know it sounds nuts on the surface, but they believe we’re lukewarm and in danger of our own comfort. And it kinda makes sense.
One day, I believe persecution will be rampant. Whether by secularism or Religions that hate us, and then we’ll be united. Although there could be other factors.
The Eucharist and enthusiastic preachers/contemporary music. There’s nothing un-Christian in that. It’ll be a while though.
Haha, another time then.
J
johnnyc176
Guest
“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.”
Jesus = new manna
We spent some time tonight in front of the Blessed Sacrament fighting satan and his minions. Did you stand with us or against us?
G
guanophore
Guest
It comes to mind that none of these issues are included in the original doctrinal formulations of the Lutheran faith, so it may not be accurate to say there has been a change of “doctrine”. Rather, it a change of practice.
Do you find that most members of WELS are “confessional”?
I often say that Catholics who reject Catholic teachings have lost their catholicity. There are many “nominal” Catholics who are Catholic by culture or in name only, but do not believe or practice their faith.
Are Lutherans who do not embrace the confessions “nominal” Lutherans, or have they lost their “luthericity”?
- Status