Maybe it's not a good idea to ask this here, but how do i know which denomination is authentic? I don't want this thread to be a denominational flamewar, instead please show me the way to find the authentic, or at least why you believe your denomination is authentic.
Currently I'm non-denominational (but most of you will call me a prot), and only go to bible oriented churches, if at all.
Other urls found in this thread:
therealpresence.org
twitter.com
You read the confessional documents of every option and compare it to what the Bible says
You also don't trust a notoriously censorious roman catholic discord community at face value (this board)
thank you.
That's why i wasn't sure about posting it here, but wanted the catholic perspective either way.
Well, apart from cults, there is little guidance to give. Just avoid certain groups;
Not a bad idea. I'm glad you were already aware of potential bias.
Let me share what else I've found, you might find it useful:
The rcc and eo apologist here will almost always reason from historical authority, accepting as a first premise that a particular hierarchy must have special power (interpretive, administration of sacraments, etc.). They will argue why that institution is the one they observe, then every other question is a matter of what that church has proclaimed.
In the first place, you must find out whether this premise is accurate based on what the Bible says.
Textbook gaslighting
Yes, because the Bible was compiled with
* non-heretical gospels (there are a number of heretical gospels, famously including one that says Jesus was running a sodomite cult)
* epistles from Apostles, who had the Deposit of Faith at Pentecost
In addition, there is Acts of the Apostles, and a ton of books the Apostles were familiar with attached so that we would be able to know what the Apostles were talking about, including
* prophet books. The Holy Spirit spoke through them
* Jewish history books. These aren't necessarily true, but the Apostles referred to them
* books of the various laws of Old Covenant with the Jews, which don't apply, but can be useful in interpreting the New Covenanr
* King Solomon's Proverbs
* philosophical stuff like Ecclesiastes and Job
There's more to the context of 0 AD than is in those books, however. The universities have destroyed education to the point at which people don't even know what monotheism means.
The Bible is important, and it isn't everything. Furthermore, the Bible explicitly discusses bishops.
Go with a church that actually defends it's faith with unchanging doctrine, has kept apostolic succession in it's leadership, is actually only "one denomination" the whole 2000 years, and dies for it in vast numbers.
Who properly memorializes all walks of it's membership instead of blankly calling everyone "saints" without distinction and just memorializes "good preachers".
Who doesn't read out of watered down or corrupt bible versions, and doesn't give the time of day to any modern "scholarship".
Cringe
Follow what the Bible says
this
The protestants themselves interpret it in thousands of ways. The Bible has 1 meaning, it is not a Shakespeare play that can have millions of interpretations.
How many times did the Apostles in the Bible tell us to follow the tradition they gave us? They established the Apostolic Churches and lo and behold, what a coincidence, those Churches interpret the Bible the same way. Now, do you want to believe that denominations that appeared 1500 years after Christ hold the correct Apostolic tradition or do you believe that the actual Apostolic Churches that have held the Apostolic doctrine since their foundation hold the real tradition?
Arguing about the meaning of the Bible is kinda useless. Why? Ever taken a literature class? If you take a piece of text, you can make millions of theories of what it means. Protestants do this to the Bible and then have the audacity to ignore the fact that they amongst themselves interpret it in contradictive ways. The Apostles left us the teaching and that teaching gives us the message of the Bible. God did not intend the Bible to be something which every man is free to interpret in his own way and that all those interpretation is equally valid. One faith, one Church, one baptism.
The Syrian Christians, the oldest Christians, have always held the same tradition and again, what a coincidence, Rome and Constantinople and Alexandria and Antioch have held the exact same traditions.
The last words of the last book of the Bible written (Gospel of St John) state:
Very clear that the Bible itself is not the be all end all of Christianity. In fact, of all the Gospels, only the Gospel of John states what Jesus did during the 40 days before His Ascension - and He pretty clearly gives the Apostles the authority to hear confessions, and He allows the Prince of the Apostles to state His love for Jesus three times, to make up for his denial. Obviously, we can't even know who wrote which Gospels without the Church. And then there's the fact that Jesus Himself never wrote a word, or even commanded His apostles to write.
Lol how tf are 7th day adventists not in the cult tier?
It's even better when you consider that Saint Thomas Christians, Christians in India who's churches were established by the Apostle Thomas, were Catholic and had bishops despite not having contact with Europe or Rome until the age of exploration, In which part of the church joined communion with Rome in 1552.
I mean yeah, we have st. Irenaeus of Antioch (the 3rd bishop of Antioch, appointed by st. Peter himself) in the 1st century writing about the Church hierarchy and the importance and the role of bishops.,
But just read the Bible bro.
You have no evidence they were Catholic you dumb shill. Pheck off.
No no, they were southern reformed anabaptists.
So which denom is that buddy?
They weren't Romanist looters from 1500 years AD either. Pheck off.
The Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Slovakia, of course.
Massive kekathon
Tasty prot tears
Enjoy your eternaban crony.
Prot exegesis hard at work here.
Doubt
They were apostolics of various strands.
And their reunification had some messed up parts.
Regardless, due to the fact that the ancient sees have come to multiple agreements among themselves regarding Christology, it's obvious the truth is among either the Western or Eastern Churches.
Now, if we could only Mend the Schism(and the other 2, though i assume the Oriental and Assyrian Churches would be glad to join this Great Ecumenical Council, if we figured out an acceptable scheme).
Pray for that, my apostolic brothers and cousins.
What's wrong with the Amish? I heard they were ok.
Imperatoris Theodosii codex: Book 16, Title 6 (A.D. 413)
Reinstated in Codex Justinianus Book 1, Title 6 (A.D. 529)
16.6.6 Emperors Honorius and Theodosius Augustuses to Anthemius, Praetorian Prefect.
No person shall resort to the crime of rebaptizing, nor shall he endeavor to pollute with the filth of profaned religions and the sordidness of heretics those persons who have been initiated in the rites of the orthodox… if after the time that the law was issued any person should be discovered to have rebaptized anyone who had been initiated into the mysteries of the Catholic sect, he shall suffer the penalty [of death], along with the person rebaptized, because he has committed a crime that must be expiated, provided, however, that the person so persuaded is capable of crime by reason of his age.
The Edinburgh Encyclopedia, Vol 3, p.251 (1830)
It must have already occurred to our readers, that the baptists are the same sect of Christians which we formerly described under the appellation of ANABAPTISTS. Indeed, this seems to have been their great leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present day.
Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
I looked into those guys before I joined an ARP (smaller denomination very similar to PCA in the South) and I wrote them off just like the Wesleyans b/c they practice female ordination
what's so hard to understand?
Indeed…what's so hard?
yeah whats so hard?
He is the narrow way, the only door to salvation, yes. Your problem is that you both lack the Church Christ built, and lack the history of the Early Church that verifies the true meaning; which is the Holy Eucharist Christ instituted.
Until you come around, you inadvertently find yourself as one of Christ's disciples who left Him when He announced that you must eat and drink of His flesh and blood to be saved.
wait…so you're saying words like "door" can be non literal?
Assuming you're right, wouldn't that just mean I misunderstood what he meant? I'll admit there are lots of things I don't understand as far as systematic theology, and am open to being wrong in many ways, but I still trust in Christ.
Well friend, I like many eithers do consider the Catholic Church to be a bible based Church.
My recommendation would be to read some of the Early Church fathers on key topics. The real presence would be one! Because if you determine that most of the Early Christians believed in it, then you narrow down your choices to just two, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.
Now here is a website, obviously trying to show that they did believe in the Real Presence, but you can use this as a starting point where you can do your own research! therealpresence.org
Hope that helped and God bless :) And sorry about all the fighting, it is a thing here unfortunately :(
John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
That's still practically everyone except Orthodox and Catholic.
They are like Muslims and claim that you can't even portray Jesus, Mary, or even wear a cross because of the third commandment. Now, obviously God does not mean that commandment to apply in that way, because He commands the Israelites to build the Ark of the Covenant. Actually, I think even Anderson and other fundamentalist baptists take this position
Scripture has to be interpreted by turns literal and figuratively, the Church has never taught otherwise. Best example is Solomon's Song, not even the Jews taught that this book was ever meant to be literal.
No clue, you'd leave yourself open to judgement in that case.
52At this, the Jews began to argue among themselves, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 53So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day
The Apostle John via the Holy Spirit is saying that works of the Elect are driven by the Spirit, mere flesh without the Spirit will not be counted worthy.
Your error is deadly, you deprive yourself of the Eucharist.
Obviously an evangelist church who acknowledges the legitimacy of the chosen people.
With that reasoning against images, they also reject Jesus as God. They show themselves to not have truly adsorbed the New Testament when they become so iconoclastic. No different than Jews or Muslims - but at least Jews and Muslims are honest about their stupidity. They don't engage in doublespeak. They proudly reject the New Testament. They don't slither in like these Protestants and do internal damage to the church. Only external.
Jesus IS "the image of the invisible God" - Col 1:15. This whole sanction on images is thrown out the window in the person of Christ himself. The entire foundation of Christianity rests on an image of God being revealed to us. And not in some abstract mystical way either, but clearly revealed. "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life". - 1 John 1:1
Everything else goes in trash
Why would you include Calvinism in that list? TULIP is completely incompatible with the theology of any Apostolic Church.
On manmade idols you mean? Nice try approving idolatry.
1 Corinthians 12:2
Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.
Revelation 9:20
Jesus tells us what the foundation and strength of the Church is:
"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." This is the foundation of the Church, this is the faith that holds the keys of heaven, this is the faith against which the gates of Hell cannot prevail. Jesus is truly man and the Messiah, and Jesus is truly the Son of God and the Word of God. Anyone who professes this faith, with everything that it implies, is a true Christian.
Find the church that truly teaches this, the church that truly and correctly teaches about the humanity of Jesus and the divinity of Jesus.
Also with regard to 1 John 1:1, the Word of life IS in the book of 1 John itself. The very words you quoted are the Word of Life. And that ties back to John 6:53 and John 6:63 as well.
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. — Matthew 4:4
He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. — John 12:48
The Church that still fully upholds apostolic succession and tradition, of course.
It's amazing, isn't it?
More amazing is that people still ignore it.
Jesus is the Word. We're talking about John himself, who outright told you this: "In the beginning was the Logos"…"And the Logos was made flesh."
Why are you Protestants so obtuse? Seriously, why? I can't wrap my head around it. You actually pitted the Bible as more the Word of God than Christ himself?
This. No church can save you, but some can condemn you by their false traditions. Trust in Christ, read the word and search diligently for a church that lines up best with scripture.
Many new converts seek a church that "feels good" that tells them they're good people for attending that particular church, you must avoid these places and remember there is not one good but God almighty.
Yeah, I know.
That is one sick, vile accusation you just made toward me. It should go without saying that it's false, and it offends the conscience to even observe it.
I really hope you're not using this as some kind of cover to your own denial that Jesus is the Word made flesh (John 1:14), and that God was manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). Are you?
You remember where in Hebrews 1:2 it says:
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Or in Ephesians 3:9
And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
— Ephesians 3:9
Or in 2 Peter 3:5
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
Or, maybe, you're just denying the mystery of godliness, which according to 1 Timothy 3:16 is indeed great. That would be a shame to see, if you're truly denying it.
Orthodox. It's Orthodox.
O
R
T
H
O
D
O
X
That's even sillier than your last post. How can you possibly say I'm the one denying that the Word was made flesh, when I just explicitly said this? I said "The Logos was made flesh", and now you're asking me if I believe this? Why would I quote it if I didn't? Use your head.
You're the one that insisted that the Word of Life is some seperate abstraction apart from Christ. You said:
He's referring to Jesus as the Logos, not his own epistle. You turned it into a mere abstraction, when he's talking about an actual man who he bore witness to.
If you want to say the Word of Life is BOTH, that's great. But you decided to focus only on the written word as some expression of the Word of Life. Don't blame me for getting angry about that. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt now, since it sounds like you're actually on the same page. But this was a poor way of phrasing things.
Not really. I was simply explaining the real purpose of his statement there, and if you read the complete sentence (i.e. the next verses) you would have gotten it too.
That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
So then this verse in 1 John isn't some strange reference to a manmade image being equal to Christ. It's actually referring to the very things they, being inspired, have heard.
And actually refers back to itself by calling itself the Word of life. This happens across the New Testament as well but you chose probably one of the most explicit references when you consider what 1 John 1:3 says. And so the whole point of this was to show the verse isn't some obscure reference to a picture somewhere made by some random guy. Neither is Colossians 1:15 either.
The problem is that sola scriptura is a false doctrine, and it's very error presupposes one towards error.
Scripture was never meant to be read without either the Apostolic Tradition, or the Church Christ instituted in Matthew 16:18. You are stuck proof-texting your arguments, singularly, when Scripture was never meant to be used in such a manner.
How do you reconcile:
He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. — John 12:48
With Matthew 16:18? You reject the Church Christ built on Peter, thus you reject Christ's own words via John 12:48.
He isn't wrong. Because to be Orthodox is to trust Jesus' decision to grant authority to the See of St. Peter
Come Home to Rome, lads
No, the Holy Spirit makes understanding of his word possible and guides the saved believer into all truth, consider.
John 16:13-14
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
1 Corinthians 2:9-13
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1 John 2:27
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
2 Corinthians 1:21-22
Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
This rock refers to Jesus Christ. See for instance, Matthew 16:16, 1 Corinthians 10:4, Ephesians 2:20, 1 Corinthians 3:11, Acts 4:11, 1 Peter 2:7.
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
— 1 Corinthians 10:4
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
— Ephesians 2:20
Also, there is no Biblical concept of passing down apostleship. Because the only time this was performed is to fulfill a prophecy about Judas Iscariot. So that's all just historical revisionism devised much later by one of the state churches. In fact, revisionism is happening constantly, with 20th century doctrines invented by man being rewritten as having always existed. Just like how they lift up their dumb idols which their hands crafted as God. This is what happens when you get away from the eternal, unchanging words of life.
Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
John 6:68
And also you have self-glorifying people taking credit for things, creating cunningly devised fables, corrupt documents and placing themselves as successors, and appealing to the flesh and worldly goals to draw away disciples for themselves just as Paul warned about in Acts 20:28-32.
This is probably another one of those straw men. I of course believe in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and what it says. Whatever you were told is probably a misrepresentation… I really wouldn't be surprised. Anyway thanks for letting me reconcile these things here.
Simple truth.
I wish that were the case, but you Protestants are deeply hypocritical for using this passage. You have a bad habit of dismissing 2000 years of church history, and only applying this passage to yourself. If you truly believed that the Holy Spirit guides us in all truth, you would not turn the Holy Spirit's guidance over a millennium into a farce.
Where was he all of this time? Why is he only guiding you, and somehow missed the billions of Christians over thousands of years? Why is it that everyone is acting in bad faith and mired in falsehood and can't have the benefit of God's guidance except you? You don't care to be familial and connected to anyone that God has seen fit to guide before. You're no better than Muslims.
I converted myself to Christianity through the Bible and the works of the Holy Spirit. At no point were any Protestants involved into this. Just a divine force gifting a sudden understanding of the Gospel purely by grace.
If that makes me a Protestant, then there is nothing I can do about it. I didn't get pedo-baptized or confirmed into Catholic/Orthodox church as a child and I simply cannot base my faith on "2000 years of church history".
I believe in the living and present God, our Lord and savior Jesus Christ, who is in fact risen.
I don't intend to judge other Christians and their faith, it's up to God to do so. If anyone still doesn't understand the Word and wants to, I will pray for them.