Solo vs Sola Scriptura:

[Drawmack]

You could say it either way. People would know what you mean. When I first started playing my instrument of choice, I bought an instruction book and learned the basics from that. I believe it is accurate for me to say that I taught myself how to play that instrument. As you know, the Bible is more than an instruction book. Some things a person can glean for himself without an interpreter. An example would be that one of Jesus’ disciples is named Thomas. Other parts of the Bible require an infallible interpreter. An example of that would be the necessity of infant baptism.

So then you agree that a book can teach, and being a book the Bible can teach. So please stop saying that the Bible doesn’t teach as you have just, yourself, stated that this is an inaccurate statement.

Thanks. Your interpretation of it isn’t accurate, but thanks for showing me that passage. You do admit that your interpretation could be wrong don’t you?

Any interpretation of anything could be wrong. You do admit that if you’re going to tell me I’m wrong you should actually support that claim don’t you?

 

[Drawmack]

Drawmack, for the record, it was Philip not Paul who preached to the Eunuch but nowhere does it say that Philip left because being baptized gave the Eunuch the ability to interpret scripture. You and I have both been baptized and yet we have totally different interpretations of this scriptural passage. One of us is wrong . Since you are the one claiming that baptism gives you the ability to accurately interpret scripture, I think its clear that it has to be you that is wrong.

Well, since you are not interpreting it but rather accepting the Catholic Church’s interpretation I assert that you must be wrong.

Okay, it was Philip and not Paul – I was mistaken sorry.

Seriously, you have not offered any explanation for why Philip was whisked away. You simply said that I was wrong. If not for the reason that I proposed that what other reason offers equivocal or better explanatory power for why he was whisked away, which was an act of God, the second the Baptism was completed and did not stay to instruct and interpret since that was the eunuch’s actual problem?

 

[Lampo]

So then you agree that a book can teach, and being a book the Bible can teach. So please stop saying that the Bible doesn’t teach as you have just, yourself, stated that this is an inaccurate statement.

Does the Bible teach Lutherans that infant baptism is necessary because it washes away original sin? Does the Bible teach Southern Baptists that baptism is only symbolic and that it is not necessary to baptize infants and doesn’t wash away original sin? If yes, how is this so?

 

[Drawmack]

Does the Bible teach Lutherans that infant baptism is necessary because it washes away original sin? Does the Bible teach Southern Baptists that baptism is only symbolic and that it is not necessary to baptize infants and doesn’t wash away original sin? If yes, how is this so?

You have now crossed a boundary into theologic minutia, or heterodoxy to be academically correct. The Bible teaches both of them that Baptism is necessary and profitable and they both agree on this. However, they disagree on the finer points and thus have heterodoxical teachings on those finer points. Which is what I keep saying; the Catholic Church has a definition of orthodoxy that is much more strict that Scripture allows for.

 

[Mark01]

I’m not confusing the two.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

We believe the Church has the fullness of truth and is the pillar and bullwark of truth. (1 Tim 3:15) Not differing, fallible, individual interpretations of scripture.

Do you think that truth matters, especially doctrine about our very souls?
Do you think that teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach as such?
Do you think that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?
IF you answer “yes” to these (and we all realize that as a Catholic, you may not), then you can enter the discussion of WHAT is the most sound rule/canon/norma normans for this norming.

You still seem to be confusing that self agrees with self with the issue of whether self is correct. Yes, we all know, The Catholic Church has one view - officially, formally and currently. And yes, self agrees with self - and no other agrees with that self and that self agrees with no other. It’s a unity of one: Self alone with self alone. Okay. So what? The LDS agrees with the LDS, too. By your rubric, it ergo is infallible, unaccountable and exempt from norming - right cuz self alone agrees with self alone. I find your premise very weak and dangerous. And I doubt that you even agree with yourself in this matter.

You can “believe” WHATEVER you want! And I will afford you EXACTLY the same respect for your act of faith in docilicly accepting whatever your denomination says as you yourself afford to Mormons who have the exact same act of faith in docilicly accepting whatever their denomination says. Fair enough? I’m certain you think it is. But the issue here is ACCOUNTABLITY, the issue here is: IS IT CORRECT? The issue here is not whether you or our Mormon friends are sincere in your act of faith.

You seem to have an on-going “problem” with self designating self as the sole authoritative, infallible, unaccountable interpreter of Scripture. Me, too! (It’s one of the reasons I left The Catholic Church). But, friend, there’s only ONE that does that! It’s The Catholic Church (CCC 85, 87 for example). Your “problem” is with The Catholic Church alone. No other does what you seem to reject.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[cfrancis]

Do you think that truth matters, especially doctrine about our very souls?
Do you think that teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach as such?
Do you think that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?
IF you answer “yes” to these (and we all realize that as a Catholic, you may not), then you can enter the discussion of WHAT is the most sound rule/canon/norma normans for this norming.

You still seem to be confusing that self agrees with self with the issue of whether self is correct. Yes, we all know, The Catholic Church has one view - officially, formally and currently. And yes, self agrees with self - and no other agrees with that self and that self agrees with no other. It’s a unity of one: Self alone with self alone. Okay. So what? The LDS agrees with the LDS, too. By your rubric, it ergo is infallible, unaccountable and exempt from norming - right cuz self alone agrees with self alone. I find your premise very weak and dangerous. And I doubt that you even agree with yourself in this matter.

You can “believe” WHATEVER you want! And I will afford you EXACTLY the same respect for your act of faith in docilicly accepting whatever your denomination says as you yourself afford to Mormons who have the exact same act of faith in docilicly accepting whatever their denomination says. Fair enough? I’m certain you think it is. But the issue here is ACCOUNTABLITY, the issue here is: IS IT CORRECT? The issue here is not whether you or our Mormon friends are sincere in your act of faith.

You seem to have an on-going “problem” with self designating self as the sole authoritative, infallible, unaccountable interpreter of Scripture. Me, too! (It’s one of the reasons I left The Catholic Church). But, friend, there’s only ONE that does that! It’s The Catholic Church (CCC 85, 87 for example). Your “problem” is with The Catholic Church alone. No other does what you seem to reject.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah
  .

AJ,
So, when you left the Catholic Church, you presumably started with Scripture. Which raises the obvious question: how did you hold accountable those who told you what books are inspired and therefore to be included in the canon of Scripture?
How have you held accountable those who have taught you - told you - that what is in the Bible is Scripture and inspired?

 

[Drawmack]

Drawmack;6317482:

I feel that there is a great deal more to what the Catholic Church teaches about the interpretation of Scripture.

Then, I fear you have been misled. Once the Catholic Church makes an official proclamation on the meaning of a specific passage of scripture they have done exactly what I said above. If I am incorrect please demonstrate how.

It is not an exception, the Church is the Body of Christ, represented here on earth by the Pilgrim Church.

So not by the Catholic Church but by the Pilgrim Church? Those are not synonyms and if you can’t even be sincere enough in your apologetics to be honest and consistent with your language then please do not engage in apologetic discussions with me.

Now if you want to talk about accountability of the Pilgrim Church, then it is accountable to God and to the members of the Body of Christ.

I assume that you are replacing Catholic with Pilgrim in order to confuse the language. But, in what way is this church you are speaking of accountable to God? Exactly when does this accountability happen and what happens with all the people they’ve misled with false doctrine in the meantime? Maybe if this Pilgrim Church you are talking about fell into error then God would ordain sometime of reformation or rebellion against this church allowing for true doctrine to be taught in another church, maybe that is how God would hold them accountable.

It is when the Pilgrim Church does not answer to that accountability It opens the door to Scandal. History is full of Scandal and sadly this is something that is damaging The Church today just as it did during the Reformation.

Yes scandal damages Christianity. But, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Maybe, speaking as a Catholic, you would venture an answer to a question I have never had a Catholic even attempt to answer in the past – they always just ignore it. Actually it is two questions.

1. Why have a cannon of Scripture, why even bother to officially determine what books are inspired and which are not?
2. In light of your answer to the above question, what good purpose is served by leaving information necessary for salvation out of this cannon?

 

[Drawmack]

So, when you left the Catholic Church, you presumably started with Scripture. Which raises the obvious question: how did you hold accountable those who told you what books are inspired and therefore to be included in the canon of Scripture?

Just because someone believes that a person, group, or entity got one thing right it does not logically follow that this person must accept everything that person, entity, or group says as correct. This is simply not a valid logical conclusion from the premise and therefore it is apologetically useless.

How have you held accountable those who have taught you - told you - that what is in the Bible is Scripture and inspired?

This I cannot answer for anyone else.

 

[cfrancis]

Just because someone believes that a person, group, or entity got one thing right it does not logically follow that this person must accept everything that person, entity, or group says as correct. This is simply not a valid logical conclusion from the premise and therefore it is apologetically useless

Please, do not place words - or intent - where I placed none. The point is not about the Catholic Church - it’s about being consistent.
1 - AJ, to be consistent, had to hold accountable those who he believes have told him what is and is not inspired Scripture.
2 - To apply that accountability, he needs a standard, a rule, a norm as to what does and does not constitute Scripture

I’d like to know if AJ did this.

 

[Mark01]

Drawmack
In my exchanges with you in this thread, I have learned I have a great deal to learn about apologetics and I realize it is more than an exchange of opinions and ideals. You friend are very good at what you do.

In the future I will be very cautious in entering the arena of apologetics, you make some very good points and they have gotten me thinking and delving into questions that I had never considered before about the Catholic Church and the Christian Faith.

If I attempted to defend “my opinion” concerning why has the Canon of Scripture been defined and why it has been closed, it would be just that, my opinion. When I have found a logical answer I will attempt to present it to you. Honestly I don’t think that will happen for I believe there is a great deal concerning God and Salvation that is beyond what logic can explain and it is what we Catholics consider to be The Mystery of Faith. It is not logical my friend but it is what I believe God intended.

It has been a pleasure participating in a dialog with you and maybe after a bit more study I will be better equipped to do so again.

 

[Lampo]

You have now crossed a boundary into theologic minutia, or heterodoxy to be academically correct. The Bible teaches both of them that Baptism is necessary and profitable and they both agree on this. However, they disagree on the finer points and thus have heterodoxical teachings on those finer points. Which is what I keep saying;

How does the Bible teach two different things? Who is right on the “finer points”? Do Lutherans consider them “finer points”? Do Lutherans and Baptists consider this minutia?

…the Catholic Church has a definition of orthodoxy that is much more strict that Scripture allows for.

According to whom? You?

 

[Lampo]

Do you think that truth matters, especially doctrine about our very souls?
Do you think that teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach as such?
Do you think that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?
IF you answer “yes” to these (and we all realize that as a Catholic, you may not), then you can enter the discussion of WHAT is the most sound rule/canon/norma normans for this norming.

You still seem to be confusing that self agrees with self with the issue of whether self is correct. Yes, we all know, The Catholic Church has one view - officially, formally and currently. And yes, self agrees with self - and no other agrees with that self and that self agrees with no other. It’s a unity of one: Self alone with self alone. Okay. So what? The LDS agrees with the LDS, too. By your rubric, it ergo is infallible, unaccountable and exempt from norming - right cuz self alone agrees with self alone. I find your premise very weak and dangerous. And I doubt that you even agree with yourself in this matter.

You can “believe” WHATEVER you want! And I will afford you EXACTLY the same respect for your act of faith in docilicly accepting whatever your denomination says as you yourself afford to Mormons who have the exact same act of faith in docilicly accepting whatever their denomination says. Fair enough? I’m certain you think it is. But the issue here is ACCOUNTABLITY, the issue here is: IS IT CORRECT? The issue here is not whether you or our Mormon friends are sincere in your act of faith.

You seem to have an on-going “problem” with self designating self as the sole authoritative, infallible, unaccountable interpreter of Scripture. Me, too! (It’s one of the reasons I left The Catholic Church). But, friend, there’s only ONE that does that! It’s The Catholic Church (CCC 85, 87 for example). Your “problem” is with The Catholic Church alone. No other does what you seem to reject.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

This still makes no sense to me. Can you word it differently? What is a synonym for “accountability” in the way you are using this word?

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Drawmack, for the record, it was Philip not Paul who preached to the Eunuch but nowhere does it say that Philip left because being baptized gave the Eunuch the ability to interpret scripture. You and I have both been baptized and yet we have totally different interpretations of this scriptural passage. One of us is wrong . Since you are the one claiming that baptism gives you the ability to accurately interpret scripture, I think its clear that it has to be you that is wrong.

Why do you jump to the conclusion that Philip was whisked away because the Eunuch was able to interpret scriptures, having to be baptized. That is a large, and incorrect leap. Was’t it enough that Philip converted him and brought him into the church?

Does your new church really teach that one of the benefits of baptism is the inerrant interpretation of scripture or is that your own innovation? Surely you recognize that every Catholic is baptized as well, yet we have different interpretations of scripture than you do.
So how can different interpretations come form the same book and both be correct? Do you believe that there can be multiple truths to the same question?

 

[maggie41]

One of the most popular Catholic apologetics, but one I’ve never understood. Even when I was a Catholic…

Yes, we all realize that The Catholic Church officially, formally and currently agrees with itself alone in all matters that it alone currently regards as necessary for agreement. Yup. No one denies or even questions that. MY question: ** So what? ** What on earth does that possibly signify? Doesn’t self usually agree with self? The Catholic Church has a whopping unity of just one: self with self, a unity with self alone, a unity exclusively with the one it sees in the mirror - and THAT only formally, officially and currently, and only in those matters that it alone currently declares is good to agree upon. It seems remarkably unremarkable. And the POINT of it is entirely moot. Heck, I agree with me (formally and currently anyway, in the matters that I alone thinks are good to agree about, currently), and yet what Catholic is posting that ERGO I alone am infallible, unaccountable, exempt from norming, and whatever I alone say is just to be accepted “with docility” “as God speaking?”



.

Josiah,

I understand what you are saying, I think. So, the Catholic Church agrees with the Catholic Church; the Baptist Church agrees with the Baptist Church, so what? Is this correct?

The difference though, as I see it, is what provision is there outside of the Catholic Church to avoid division. If I read Scripture and determine that baptism is only symbolic and my neighbor reads Scripture and determines baptism is regenerative, how do we come to agreement, who settles the dispute? The Catholic Church tells us that the Church settles such disputes and therefore avoids division. We can trust that Jesus provided this for us because He wants us to have His truth, not our misunderstanding of truth.

But, outside of the Catholic Church that dispute would lead to division. One would become Baptist and the other Lutheran, or Church of Christ possibly depending on their other beliefs. Without an authoritative teacher, there is no way to know who is right and who is wrong, so we divide based on our infallible understanding of Scripture.

In summary, the way of SS that all protestants follow leads to division, it is unavoidable. The way of Catholic teaching leads to unity if submitted to.

Paul said “let there be no division among you…” He never said, “if you can’t agree, just divide up into separate denominations.”

In Christ’s Love,
Maggie

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

One of the most popular Catholic apologetics, but one I’ve never understood. Even when I was a Catholic…

Yes, we all realize that The Catholic Church officially, formally and currently agrees with itself alone in all matters that it alone currently regards as necessary for agreement. Yup. No one denies or even questions that. MY question: So what? What on earth does that possibly signify? Doesn’t self usually agree with self? The Catholic Church has a whopping unity of just one: self with self, a unity with self alone, a unity exclusively with the one it sees in the mirror - and THAT only formally, officially and currently, and only in those matters that it alone currently declares is good to agree upon. It seems remarkably unremarkable. And the POINT of it is entirely moot. Heck, I agree with me (formally and currently anyway, in the matters that I alone thinks are good to agree about, currently), and yet what Catholic is posting that ERGO I alone am infallible, unaccountable, exempt from norming, and whatever I alone say is just to be accepted “with docility” “as God speaking?”

.

Josiah,

I understand what you are saying, I think. So, the Catholic Church agrees with the Catholic Church; the Baptist Church agrees with the Baptist Church, so what? Is this correct?

One of the most popular Catholic apologetics is that The Catholic Church is correct because it agrees with itself exclusively. Yes, I admit - even when I was a Catholic - this seemed remarkably unremarkable - especially since the very ones defending this rubric also ridiculed and mocked it. It’s hard to accept something when the one defending it ridicules and mocks it.

The difference though, as I see it, is what provision is there outside of the Catholic Church to avoid division.

As far as I can tell, ALL “avoid” it for SELF. Exactly as does The Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church tells us that the Church settles such disputes and therefore avoids division.

For ITSELF. Yes, The Catholic Church embraces the view of The Catholic Church. Okay. So what? Yes, The Catholic Church can determine what the view is of The Catholic Church, and yes - The Catholic Chruch exclusively may agree with The Catholic Church exclusively so that it has agreement with one: itself, it has a unity of one with one: self with self. I understand. What I do NOT understand in what in the world does that have to do with unity or with that self being correct?

Without an authoritative teacher, there is no way to know who is right and who is wrong, so we divide based on our infallible understanding of Scripture.

Unfortunately, arbitration is beyond the scope and permitted discussion of this thread, but let me just state that self alone declaring that self alone is correct because self alone declares that self alone is incapable of error and thus is infallible has nothing to do with “settling” the issue, either.

In summary, the way of SS that all protestants follow leads to division, it is unavoidable. The way of Catholic teaching leads to unity if submitted to.

Well, if everyone just submitted to me and agreed with me there’d be unity, too. All The Catholic Church has is a unity of one: self with self. All other teachers have AT LEAST that much. “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right, so I’m right - just agree with me and then I would be united with more than just me” is hardly a compelling case for anything, IMHO.

Paul said “let there be no division among you…”

He also didn’t say, “if self alone agrees with self alone - then there is unity.” If he had, then The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod would have unity, the LDS would have unity, the RCC would have unity, the EO would have unity, the UMC would have unity. But would Christians?

This thread is not about whether self agrees with self. Self almost always does. It’s about accountability. Do you believe that truth matters, especially doctrine concerning our very souls? Do you think that teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach as such? Do you think The Catholic Church teaches doctrine? IF yes, then The Catholic Church is accountable for what it teaches - no less (and no more) than any other teacher of doctrine. And the relevant question of this thread then comes into focus: WHAT now is the most sound rule/ canon/ norma normans for the norming that such requires? Some think that Scripture is the most sound canon for this normative process. Those that reject the Rule of Scripture (the RCC, LDS and all the cults) do so not because they have an alternate norma normans (they don’t) but because they reject accountability for what is taught - but only in the sole, exclusive case of self.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

Do you think that truth matters, especially doctrine about our very souls?
Do you think that teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach as such?
Do you think that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?
IF you answer “yes” to these (and we all realize that as a Catholic, you may not), then you can enter the discussion of WHAT is the most sound rule/canon/norma normans for this norming.

You still seem to be confusing that self agrees with self with the issue of whether self is correct. Yes, we all know, The Catholic Church has one view - officially, formally and currently. And yes, self agrees with self - and no other agrees with that self and that self agrees with no other. It’s a unity of one: Self alone with self alone. Okay. So what? The LDS agrees with the LDS, too. By your rubric, it ergo is infallible, unaccountable and exempt from norming - right cuz self alone agrees with self alone. I find your premise very weak and dangerous. And I doubt that you even agree with yourself in this matter.

You can “believe” WHATEVER you want! And I will afford you EXACTLY the same respect for your act of faith in docilicly accepting whatever your denomination says as you yourself afford to Mormons who have the exact same act of faith in docilicly accepting whatever their denomination says. Fair enough? I’m certain you think it is. But the issue here is ACCOUNTABLITY, the issue here is: IS IT CORRECT? The issue here is not whether you or our Mormon friends are sincere in your act of faith.

You seem to have an on-going “problem” with self designating self as the sole authoritative, infallible, unaccountable interpreter of Scripture. Me, too! (It’s one of the reasons I left The Catholic Church). But, friend, there’s only ONE that does that! It’s The Catholic Church (CCC 85, 87 for example). Your “problem” is with The Catholic Church alone. No other does what you seem to reject.

.

This still makes no sense to me. Can you word it differently? What is a synonym for “accountability” in the way you are using this word?

I think the word is well understood. Let me use an example: Bob the Builder agrees to build a fence that is six feet tall between your home and mine. You are I are splitting the $1,000.00 cost. The fence is now done. Does it matter to you if it is six feet tall? Do you think that Bob the Builder is accountable for what he has built and what he claims about such? Follow me?

Now, we do have a couple of options here. Bob could say, “I won’t permit the question of whether the fence is six feet tall, because I am not accountable for what I say or do. Just accept the fence with docility, as if God built it.” We can take it or leave it, I suppose, but is this the best way to determine if the fence is the claimed 6 feet tall? Is this the best why to know?

Or maybe, Bob the Builder welcomes accountability. Perhaps he even invites us to norm the claim, confident that he is correct in what he claims. The first issue, then, would become WHAT will serve as the canon (the word literally means “measuring stick” and comes from the epistemology of norming)? Perhaps Bob, you and I agree that a standard Sears Measuring Tape best serves for this purpose. We all have one. It’s knowable by all and alterable by none, embraced as reliable for this purpose by all of us. In that case, the measuring tape would be the canon, the rule, the norma normans. If it were as doctrine, and if we were embracing the Rule of Scripture (aka Sola Scriptura), then Scripture would be that canon.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[maggie41]

As far as I can tell, ALL “avoid” it for SELF. Exactly as does The Catholic Church.

I am not talking about avoiding it for self. I am talking about avoiding it with one another.

For ITSELF. Yes, The Catholic Church embraces the view of The Catholic Church. Okay. So what? Yes, The Catholic Church can determine what the view is of The Catholic Church, and yes - The Catholic Chruch exclusively may agree with The Catholic Church exclusively so that it has agreement with one: itself, it has a unity of one with one: self with self. I understand. What I do NOT understand in what in the world does that have to do with unity or with that self being correct?

No, not for itself, again, with one another.

Unfortunately, arbitration is beyond the scope and permitted discussion of this thread, but let me just state that self alone declaring that self alone is correct because self alone declares that self alone is incapable of error and thus is infallible has nothing to do with “settling” the issue, either.

So, is there no way to settle a dispute?

Well, if everyone just submitted to me and agreed with me there’d be unity, too. All The Catholic Church has is a unity of one: self with self. All other teachers have AT LEAST that much. “I’m right so I’m right when I say I’m right, so I’m right - just agree with me and then I would be united with more than just me” is hardly a compelling case for anything, IMHO.

The Catholic Church teaches unity through the teaching of the Church given to her by her founder Jesus Christ. I don’t think you could or would claim this for yourself.

He also didn’t say, “if self alone agrees with self alone - then there is unity.” If he had, then The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod would have unity, the LDS would have unity, the RCC would have unity, the EO would have unity, the UMC would have unity. But would Christians?

No, Paul didn’t say that and neither am I. How is the unity that Paul speaks of supposed to be achieved, in your opinion?

This thread is not about whether self agrees with self. Self almost always does. It’s about accountability. Do you believe that truth matters, especially doctrine concerning our very souls?

Yes, it is why I am Catholic.

Do you think that teachers of doctrine are accountable for what they teach as such?

Yes.

Do you think The Catholic Church teaches doctrine?

Yes.

IF yes, then The Catholic Church is accountable for what it teaches - no less (and no more) than any other teacher of doctrine.

Ok.

And the relevant question of this thread then comes into focus: WHAT now is the most sound rule/ canon/ norma normans for the norming that such requires? Some think that Scripture is the most sound canon for this normative process.

Yes, but it is not really Scripture, but thier own interpretation of Scripture. And the fruit of this is division from one another and ultimately from the truth.

Those that reject the Rule of Scripture (the RCC, LDS and all the cults) do so not because they have an alternate norma normans (they don’t) but because they reject accountability for what is taught - but only in the sole, exclusive case of self.

I cannot speak for the LDS, but the Catholic Church rejects Sola Scriptura because it contradicts the teaching of Scripture itself.

In Christ’s Love,
Maggie

 

[LionHeart777]

oops wrong thread. “My bad”

 

[maggie41]

AJ,

in my last post I was trying to ask how when you and someone disagree, how do you go about taking it to “the church”?

Also, would “the church” just be the closest Christian Church, whether Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic) to my house?

Right, depending on which church you go to, you will get a different answer. There is no certainty of who is right and who is wrong.

In Christ’s Love,
Maggie