How do Protestants Settle on a Denomination? (No Debating Catholics/Orthodox)

I would first point out that there's no such thing as a "Protestant". Protestant is a broad umbrella term that describes those traditions which came directly out of the Reformation or in some way influenced by it. As such "Protestant" describes groups as diverse as Lutheranism and Pentecostalism.

I'm not a "Protestant" who went around trying to find a denomination like some kind of religious buffet. I'm a Lutheran because I ultimately believe what the Lutheran Confessions have to say on key matters of Christian faith and practice. And this isn't some kind of "Rome is icky so I need to find something else", as a Lutheran I identify as a catholic Christian, a member of Christ's one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

I am not a Lutheran because I went to the church store and liked the color. I'm a Lutheran because I believe Lutheranism best reflects the historic, catholic, and biblical faith of the Holy Catholic Church. If I thought that way about Catholicism, Orthodox, Anglicanism, or any other Christian communion then I would be that instead.

I'm not a Protestant who happens to be Lutheran.

I'm a Lutheran Christian.

-CryptoLutheran

Unofficial Reverand Alex said:

So, what I'm seeing so far (hopefully I can write this better than the original post):
It really doesn't matter what denomination we belong to; denominations, by their very nature, are susceptible to problems, anyway. What matters is that we follow Jesus the best that we can, read the Bible, and try to be a good person.
Does that sound about right?

Click to expand...

We all may have different reasons why we are where we are...and not all of us have yet finished the journey. I started life as RCC. After receiving Jesus into my life at 24, I joined the AOG. Got married, raised children in that church. 10 years later I fell away. A further 10 years and came to a point in my life when everything was falling apart. My older children, whom I had raised in the church and whom I had dedicated to Christ, were in the world doing all the things I had been doing before I was saved and what I had returned to. Drugs and/or alcohol.
My marriage was collapsing in an ugly heap and I knew it was all my fault. So I went out to the outside room, fell to my knees and wept for 2 hours laying everything out before my Lord in sorrow and repentance. I was crying, not for myself, but for those I had let down, failed. I pleaded with God for forgiveness for failing to raise my children in the ways of Christ as I had promised. I pleaded for forgiveness for failing to honour my wife and respect her as I should have. I asked the Lord for their lives. That He would rescue them from the world into which they were now joined, and by His grace and mercy heal my marriage. As for my own faith, I asked God to take me back to the beginning. I wanted to start from scratch. I wanted to learn again the foundational truths of faith and practice, and grow from there. I didn't want to pretend or even admit that I knew anything of theology, soteriology, or any other 'ology'. I remember having many unanswered questions when in the church previously...I wanted those answered and doubts settled. I wanted the TRUTH.
I hadn't read a Bible for over 10 years, and if asked, would not have been able to quote one scripture. But one came to mind as forcefully as if someone was next to me reading it aloud. "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added unto you".
Over the next 6 months, through Bible study, providence, miracles, much prayer and a willingness to seek and honor Him who had been so merciful to me a sinner, I discovered a number of Bible truths I had never known previously. And a number of beliefs I had held tight to that were proved wrong by scripture. I also discovered that the only church teaching those truths that I had discovered was the SDAs. I had never heard of them previously apart from being the former owners of a church building the AOG bought when I was a member there. I knew nothing of their history, or organisation. So I decided to study them. I wasn't about to be roped into a cult or false church after my previous fall from grace. I spent a further 6 months studying their doctrines, and reading their leading authors. And they have many authors. I began identifying myself as an adventist. But it took me another 5 years or so before becoming an official member of the church. I don't see it as a denomination as such. For the sake of organisation for missions and official ownership of property etc, it was necessary for the early adventists to become an officially recognised entity. But I, and most other adventists I know, believe we are a movement, made up of many ex-Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists etc. And many ex-pentecostals. And of course new Christians. A movement that came together in unity over all the basic fundamental doctrines of faith...a movement which is continuing the reformation, in fact, the only 'denomination' continuing the reformation, continuing to teach all the truths previously rediscovered by the reformers, but which they are now abandoning in favour of a return to Rome.
The Bible tells us of a power that would tear down the sanctuary, and trample truth underfoot. Have you noticed that the principle truths restored by the reformers leads one deeper and deeper into the sanctuary? That the truths they rebuilt in the church run side by side the articles of furniture in the sanctuary, and also the gospel lived by Christ? Look at this...

• He is the Door. John 10:1,2
• Jesus is the sacrifice. Matt. 5:17
• It is in Him we are to be baptized. John 4:10
• Jesus is the Bread of Life. John 6:35
• He is the Light of the world.John 8:12
• He is our Mediator. Eph. 5:2
• And He is the law personified. Matt. 5:17

Now check this out....
Israel was delivered from Egyptian bondage (a type of the Christian deliverance from sin) in the very same pattern.

• Now Passover Lamb……..sacrifice……..1 Cor.5:7…..Exodus 12:1-6
• Red Sea……..baptism…….1 Cor.10:2……Exod.14:16
• Manna….Bread…..John 6:58…..Exodus 16:4
• Israel chosen as a special nation to be a light to the Gentiles….Exodus 9:5,6.
• Moses made an intermediary (a type of Christ)….Exodus 19:9-11
• Israel given the law. ….Exodus 20

Now take a look at the life of Christ...

• Born in a stable among animals…born a living sacrifice…born to die..Luke2:7
• Baptized at age 30…Matt.3:16
• Led into the wilderness to be tempted which consisted of three elements
• 1. Change the stone to bread
• 2. presumptuous prayer
• 3. Bow in exchange for glory Matt.4:1-11
• Goes on to preach and teach the law of God coupled with the grace and the mercy of God. John 14:15. Matt.9:13

These basic truths had been lost during the long years of the dark ages. One by one, the truths were re-established in God’s church, and those truths broadcast and taught throughout the world.

In the 1300s John Wycliffe, ‘The Morning Star of the Reformation’, translated the scriptures into the common tongue. His followers and supporters were called the Lollards. In their day, they were considered a cult, and were persecuted relentlessly by the established church.

In the 1400s Martin Luther restored the truth of salvation by faith only. He restores the sacrifice of grace. Luther and his followers, the Lutherans, were considered a cult by those of his day, and were persecuted.

In the 1500s John Calvin, the founder of the Presbyterians, has a great burden for prayer. He railed against the rote prayers of the established church… In the day,Presbyterians were considered a cult; they were also persecuted, by the Lutherans.

In the 1600s God raised up a man by the name of John Smith. Smith restored the truth of baptism by immersion. His followers were known as Baptists…in their day they were considered a cult, and were persecuted by the Lutherans and the Presbyterians.

In the 1700s John Wesley founded the Methodists. John Wesley had a great burden for evangelism: for letting the light of the gospel to shine…he preached from one end of the country to another, and even to the United States. The Methodists were considered a cult and were persecuted by the Lutherans, the Presbyterians, and the Baptists.

So all the articles of furniture were restored by the beginning of the 19th century, except for one. The law of God.
The Seventh Day Adventists arrived in the early to mid 1800s. Their burden was the law of God, and they were made up of Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and even Catholics. Today, they are considered by many to be a cult.

You asked how I chose my denomination, it didn't come easy, it wasn't a haphazard decision, and it wasn't convenient...I know that was a long story...but you did ask.

I guess your post identifies the problem, without expressing it.

When you state " the essentials" which is in itself the opinion, ( on which others will disagree) that guided your journey, And it is that same platform you are using to measure what are additions and alterations.

The question You beg:

Why did you pick those as the " essentials"

Albion said:

I took the faith of the historic church--the undivided church from which we all come--and subtracted all the unscriptural additions, innovations, alterations, etc. made along the way by the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic Church (mainly the latter), while not taking away any of the essentials.

The Thirty-nine Articles summarize all of that quite well, so that helped to identify the church I was going to focus on the most.

This brings me to the oldest church in the Gentile world (and I am a Gentile) which is also at the center or mainstream of historic Christianity, not falling off towards the extremes at either end of the spectrum of churches.

Click to expand...

Just picking you up on one point.
You say the " thousands of denominations" is questionable.


I think too much focus is put on that, too little on the fact that the number of mutually exclusive belief sets do indeed run into thousands.

Take any aspect of doctrine, and there are Several, and in many cases five or mutually exclusive doctrines about it.

You name it there are fundamental non compatible disagreements on all from

Baptism
Eucharist
Other Sacraments.
Clergy and necessity
Salvation
End times
Theosis/ purgation etc
Predestination
Pro Life issues
Marriage, remarriage , including gay
A lot more where that came from
Even godhead. Like Filioque or Pentecostal modalism.

Not to mention a long list of even more arcane differences!
Like..presbyteriwn . congregations fractured on what happened to a kid who died prebaptism.

It doesn't take amathematician to calculate that permutations of mutually exclusive doctrines are many thousands, not least because many denominations do not enforce a fixed permutation and many flavours coexist.

Which was the first question in my journey. How can the eucharist be and mean simultaneously several different things in the Anglican Church? In which case how can the Anglican Church claim to be a pillar of truth, when it can't decide the truth?

And non denoms who by and large are free to decide their own permutation of the above.

So we can argue about number of denominations , it doesn't matter, there really are thousands of mutually exclusive belief sets.

It's one of the reasons I started a journey that led to Rome. There can only be one truth of all of these,

So I asked the question - what did those first fathers some even taught by apostles believe?
What is the New Testament , who picked the canon and why can I trust it?
What did the ones at the councils that chose our canon and creed believe?
When it comes to,such as infant baptism scripture is not definitive. So where is authority of what is true?

tampasteve said:

I was raised non-denominational and went to a Baptist school for 9 years, a Methodist church High school through university, and then converted to the Catholic Church, divorced and lapsed from the RCC, now I currently attend a Lutheran church - but along the way diverted to Messianic Judaism. For me, I like liturgy, I like the formal worship of a Lutheran, Catholic, or Episcopal church. However, my personal life and some beliefs preclude me from being Catholic at this point.

Most Protestants go where they like the minister and feel comfortable. There are also those that study the actual doctrine and beliefs of a particular denomination and feel they most agree with.


You misunderstand most Protestant churches. Many have an episcopal structure with Bishops, Ministers, etc. much as the Catholic Church does. Protestants that fall in that category include Episcopal/Anglican, some Lutherans, some Methodist, etc. Those that are congregational or non-episcopal in polity look to the scriptures and their pastor or denominational President/leader for direction. Almost all Protestants affirm the universal church councils, but not the Catholic councils.



Mainly from study and personal belief, much as why most Catholics believe their structure and beliefs are correct.

I think most Protestants would disagree, for many reasons that have had volumes written on it.


Prayer and personal study, again, much as Catholics would.

It is not really fair to throw out a lot of statements of "one true church", historicity claims, and the frequently quoted and misunderstood X thousand denomination statement and then say no debate...

Click to expand...

Unofficial Reverand Alex said:

Being Catholic, I'm very comforted by my denomination's historical claim, and deep entrenchment in Holy Scripture & Holy Tradition; Orthodox feel the same way.
For the purpose of this thread, I'm not looking to debate Catholicism/Orthodoxy v. Protestants; the above statement was just very brief background on how I and many others appreciate our denomination.
My question to the Protestants is, how do you settle on one denomination or church? Without any sort of authority, be it the papacy (pope) or councils of bishops to keep your church on track, how do you figure out that your particular denomination is more like what Jesus & the Apostles taught than any other? Because when you get deep enough into theology, there can only be 1 true church; if you stay protestant, how do you determine which one that is?
By the way, there's double meaning in the (No Debating Catholics/Orthodox). I don't want protestants debating Catholics/Orthodox, and I don't want Catholics/Orthodox debating protestants. For the purpose of this thread, I just want Protestants to discuss (and maybe debate) how you choose a Church that doesn't have the historical claim of Catholics & Orthodox, how you choose which of the denominations is the best.
Lord, forgive me for perpetuating us/them mentalities, and treating Your children & followers as seperate groups instead of the 1 body of Christ.

Click to expand...

Mostly, we just keep looking until we find a church that agrees with what we want to believe.

Mountainmike said:

I guess your post identifies the problem, without expressing it.

When you state " the essentials" which is in itself the opinion, ( on which others will disagree) that guided your journey, And it is that same platform you are using to measure what are additions and alterations.

The question You beg:

Why did you pick those as the " essentials"

Click to expand...

I was referring to the same ones you would accept--The Trinity, Real Presence, Apostolic Succession, etc.

I could have enumerated all of them in my post but, in my judgment, including a list of examples would not have added much to my answer and might have had the opposite effect by complicating it unnecessarily.

The point I was making is that a persons list of essentials ( on which we agree in many aspects, disagree in few) - in essence determines their choice.
(most protestants even of the more wacky belief sets would say much the same thing you did, but start with very different essentials)

But it begs the question of how someone chooses "their" essentials which are not universal by any means.

Excepting of course for the creed...since that is the minimum by which this forum allows us to post as Christians!

Albion said:

I was referring to the same ones you would accept--The Trinity, Real Presence, Apostolic Succession, etc.

I could have enumerated all of them in my post but, in my judgment, including a list of examples would not have added much to my answer and might have had the opposite effect by complicating it unnecessarily.

Click to expand...

Unofficial Reverand Alex said:

My question to the Protestants is, how do you settle on one denomination or church? Without any sort of authority, be it the papacy (pope) or councils of bishops to keep your church on track, how do you figure out that your particular denomination is more like what Jesus & the Apostles taught than any other? Because when you get deep enough into theology, there can only be 1 true church; if you stay protestant, how do you determine which one that is?

Click to expand...

Every denomination has a governing authority. There is 1 true church and it's members are every believer of Jesus Christ who is a recipient of his grace. When you get into the history of things denominations are far more about cultural distinctions than theological cause some people just didn't like Latin and wanted to hear the Gospel in their own language. In the end each nuanced faith of Christianity can draw a straight line from themselves all the way to Christ and this isn't just a privilege Catholics can enjoy.

I don't think you can dismiss theological differences so easily - either as a cause of schism and as an essential factor in choosing. There is far more than cultural difference involved,

Take salvation itself. Either baptism is essential or not. So you do it. Or not. Valid as infant. Or not. Being " saved" is either a one time action (with aprocess, take the very non biblical asking Jesus into your life as example) or it is a work in progress. Needing charitable works as well? Or not. Something that can be lost. Or not. Either Eucharist is real presence or not, and therefore needs succession priesthood, And is a component of salvation without which " you have no life in you" Or not.

I don't want to discuss the differences here , only to note that they are profound, and that What you believe matters to life, and is chalk and cheese between them.

DamianWarS said:

Every denomination has a governing authority. There is 1 true church and it's members are every believer of Jesus Christ who is a recipient of his grace. When you get into the history of things denominations are far more about cultural distinctions than theological cause some people just didn't like Latin and wanted to hear the Gospel in their own language. In the end each nuanced faith of Christianity can draw a straight line from themselves all the way to Christ and this isn't just a privilege Catholics can enjoy.

Click to expand...

Mountainmike said:

It doesn't take amathematician to calculate that permutations of mutually exclusive doctrines are many thousands, not least because many denominations do not enforce a fixed permutation and many flavours coexist.

Click to expand...

I don't think every disagreement resulted in a new denomination.
Maybe a new church of the same denomination.
I googled "Protestant denominations" and found this page.
Denominations – Introduction to Protestantism

I would like to know where this "thousands of denominations" comes from?

Marvin Knox said:

As they say at Geico - "everybody knows that".

The Roman Catholics teach a great many false things as well. But I'm not prepared to say that all Catholics aren't saved because of them.

Hopefully many (even most) will be saved "in spite of them".

Click to expand...

This isn't the place to debate what you believe is false about Catholic teachings. Been there, done that. We know that all our teachings are of Christ, and therefore not false.

There is a directory of denominations some quote, with thousands of entries, which is flawed both because same church in different countries count several times, ( so not really additional at all) but even more because many tolerate a wide range of conflicting beliefs, which is how Presbyterian got nickname split P and for non denom churches the lack of fixed theology is the defining factor. So single apparent denominations can represent a large number of doctrines.

But the point I make is denomination counting is irrelevant, because there certainly are a large number of mix and match of mutually exclusive flavours of doctrine. I gave an indicative list.

Doug Melven said:

I don't think every disagreement resulted in a new denomination.
Maybe a new church of the same denomination.
I googled "Protestant denominations" and found this page.
Denominations – Introduction to Protestantism

I would like to know where this "thousands of denominations" comes from?

Click to expand...

I'm Lutheran by the grace of God.

Unofficial Reverand Alex said:

Being Catholic, I'm very comforted by my denomination's historical claim, and deep entrenchment in Holy Scripture & Holy Tradition; Orthodox feel the same way.
For the purpose of this thread, I'm not looking to debate Catholicism/Orthodoxy v. Protestants; the above statement was just very brief background on how I and many others appreciate our denomination.
My question to the Protestants is, how do you settle on one denomination or church? Without any sort of authority, be it the papacy (pope) or councils of bishops to keep your church on track, how do you figure out that your particular denomination is more like what Jesus & the Apostles taught than any other? Because when you get deep enough into theology, there can only be 1 true church; if you stay protestant, how do you determine which one that is?
By the way, there's double meaning in the (No Debating Catholics/Orthodox). I don't want protestants debating Catholics/Orthodox, and I don't want Catholics/Orthodox debating protestants. For the purpose of this thread, I just want Protestants to discuss (and maybe debate) how you choose a Church that doesn't have the historical claim of Catholics & Orthodox, how you choose which of the denominations is the best.
Lord, forgive me for perpetuating us/them mentalities, and treating Your children & followers as seperate groups instead of the 1 body of Christ.

Click to expand...

If ones soteriology isn’t “Calvinistic” in doctrine, then his denomination is not part of the one true church of Christ. And the RCC definitely is not part of the one true church of Christ. Being that it’s doctrines deny the gospel of grace that saves

Root of Jesse said:

This isn't the place to debate what you believe is false about Catholic teachings.

Click to expand...

Of course - which is why, in keeping with the OP, I don't intend to do so.

You commented on a particular thing which Mormons believe which you believe to be false. (I also believe that it is false by the way.)

You said that they were not Christians because of this belief (i.e. they are not saved).

I merely commented that other groups, including your overall group (Romanism) have false teachings as well and that I don't feel it is my place to offer the final verdict on them as Christians - as you did the Mormons.

Root of Jesse said:

Been there, done that.

Click to expand...

Me too. Plenty of threads on that without debating particular doctrines each of us feel are false while violating the particular and stated spirit of the OP.

Which is why I'm not sure why you started listing what you consider false and salvation eliminating doctrines for particular groups such as the Mormons.

Root of Jesse said:

We know that all our teachings are of Christ, and therefore not false.

Click to expand...

I know no such thing.

But this is hardly the place to debate them individually.

Any of that will have to come from your end of things.

You made it a point to say that this thread was not to debate particular doctrines. OK by me.

But you seem to be the one telling everyone that your group has no false teaching and that others do. This in contradiction of the OP's expressed wish.

As I read through your various posts - I'm beginning to think that, in spite of the OP, your real intent here is to argue in a backhanded way for the legitimacy of Romanism over against the illegitimacy of others who are not Roman.

I simply said that we all have beliefs which are not correct in our group be it Protestant or Roman.

You say that your group does not have error and that others without the guidance of your leaders do have error.

In specific answer to your OP - I look for a group, be it a specified denomination or simply a group of believers, who teach as closely as possible what I see in the scriptures - without the required interpretation of any group of leaders.

I reject, by my absence from regular fellowship in a particular group, any group where their doctrine doesn't line up with the scriptures.

I do that - be they Roman, Orthodox, or Protestant.

And - no - I do not believe the Roman church gave me the scriptures. I believe the Lord gave the scriptures to both the Roman church and all others.

Unofficial Reverand Alex said:

Fair point, and my apologies. I struggled awhile with how to word the question; making phrases sound nice is not one of the things I'm good at. I don't know how many times I've apoligized for something I didn't mean to sound harsh.
I've been Catholic all my life, and every Catholic church does mass the same way, minus a few superficial details. But since coming to college, I've heard a lot about people going to different churches, seemingly floating around until they find one they like, and I wanted some input on how that process works.

Click to expand...

I can't speak for everyone but from experience it can be where God is leading you, or where you feel comfortable.

I would never go to high-church as a long-term commitment, I'm just not into the formalised 'bells and smells', but I've also visited charismatic churches which didn't feel right to me - as in there seemed to be an image being imparted but something underneath. I've also had to go to a variety of dead or dying churches as part of ministry training. At the end of the day I like good teaching; good fellowship and good worship.

If I don't have good teaching I won't grow, so I think that is the most important.

Because I don't believe that what I believe should be discerned by another man.
Discernment through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Mountainmike said:

Just picking you up on one point.
You say the " thousands of denominations" is questionable.


I think too much focus is put on that, too little on the fact that the number of mutually exclusive belief sets do indeed run into thousands.

Take any aspect of doctrine, and there are Several, and in many cases five or mutually exclusive doctrines about it.

You name it there are fundamental non compatible disagreements on all from

Baptism
Eucharist
Other Sacraments.
Clergy and necessity
Salvation
End times
Theosis/ purgation etc
Predestination
Pro Life issues
Marriage, remarriage , including gay
A lot more where that came from
Even godhead. Like Filioque or Pentecostal modalism.

Not to mention a long list of even more arcane differences!
Like..presbyteriwn . congregations fractured on what happened to a kid who died prebaptism.

It doesn't take amathematician to calculate that permutations of mutually exclusive doctrines are many thousands, not least because many denominations do not enforce a fixed permutation and many flavours coexist.

Which was the first question in my journey. How can the eucharist be and mean simultaneously several different things in the Anglican Church? In which case how can the Anglican Church claim to be a pillar of truth, when it can't decide the truth?

And non denoms who by and large are free to decide their own permutation of the above.

So we can argue about number of denominations , it doesn't matter, there really are thousands of mutually exclusive belief sets.

It's one of the reasons I started a journey that led to Rome. There can only be one truth of all of these,

So I asked the question - what did those first fathers some even taught by apostles believe?
What is the New Testament , who picked the canon and why can I trust it?
What did the ones at the councils that chose our canon and creed believe?
When it comes to,such as infant baptism scripture is not definitive. So where is authority of what is true?

Click to expand...

So in other words even though the source cited is demonstrably wrong it fits your narrative about regarding "mutually exclusive belief sets", what ever that means you will continue to cite it. Perhaps you should be aware the author also states that approximately four million people were executed under the Inquisition in the very next chapter. A good response from NCR can be found here.


Rome has changed and continue to change Even in the last 150 years. Try and reconcile the Syllabus of Errors with the documents of Vatican II. And let us not forget the millions of people that simply stopped going to church in the wake of the liturgical reforms of Vatican II and have never returned.


The problem the modern RC has is that he/she assumes that history and the early church fathers are on their side. I too thought this was the case. When I actually read them, and I mean entire books they wrote I found out there was no unanimous consent of the fathers that Rome likes to point to. It doesn't exist. Some of them have great insight on passages of scripture (funny, they seemed to know what scripture was before the fourth century without the councils of Carthage, Hippo and Rome). Some are arguing against heretics such as Marcion or against groups like the Montanists. Some such as Irenaeus of Lyon are completely off kilter when he says Christ was more than 50 years old when he was crucified. What you don't find are arguments for the Roman distinctives like the Marian Dogmas or Purgatory prior to the fifth century because they had not been invented yet.

So to answer your question about the New Testament canon in brief. The early christians began collecting the writings that would later consist of the NT very early. The earliest examples from the ancient papyri can place the date as early as the first decades of the second century. Fragments and texts suggest an even earlier date. What you find are the four gospels being bound in a codex, or the gospels along with a collection of Paul's letters and so on. The early church was even able to refute a heretic such as Marcion (died ca. 160) because they knew what scripture was. In fact, it seemed that in order to earn respect as a christian writer you would have written a book against Marcion. So how is this all possible without a functioning monarchical papacy in Rome? Because the NT is self authenticating. All of this took place long before the councils of Carthage, Hippo and Rome. The early christians seemed to understand this as there was very little disagreement of what was the NT. A good discussion of this subject can be found here. Rome did not make a definitive decision on canon until 1546 at Trent. I don't think you are suggesting that prior we did not know what the canon was prior.

As to the councils and creeds to which are you referring? Nicea? Chalcedon? Both have creeds and canons. Nicaea's canons can be found here and I am assuming you already know the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed by heart. Chalcedonian creed can be found here. Notice the language, "handed down from the fathers", no mention of edicts coming from the papacy. The fathers used scripture as their rule and formulated the one holy catholic and apostolic faith that was handed down to them

Regards Baptism of infants the issue has been settled. Acts 2:37-41: (ESV)
Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” 40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

The promise was made by God to children as well as adults.

Look, the Anglican church in the west has huge problems as does the Roman church. Places in Africa and the Southern Cone are far more orthodox. But things are not so rosey across the Tiber. Until the Pope or the bishops begin actually enforcing discipline on their members don't tell me how great church teaching is. From the outside it seems you can believe anything so longer as you pledge allegiance to Rome. I have a local EWTN radio station that I occasionally listen to on the way home from work and it seems people like Al Kresta have to constantly reassure the flock that it is quite normal for the Pope to give an award to Dutch politician whose sole notoriety is that she encourages the killing of the unborn. Listen, I know the Archbishop of Canterbury (Which we are not in communion with) is a child in a grown up world but my doctrine doesn't assign to him the charism of infallibility.

A wide ranging anticatholic attack is not a reasonable response to my post, and so I will not tackle the wide range of issues you raise.

I pointed out fairly that numbers of denominations are not a good determinant of the degree of schism and variation in belief,

Looking at variants in doctrine directly is clearly a better indication,

Mutually exclusive is a simple logical term.
For example The following.
- Once saved, always saved
- Saved but can lose it
- Not saved to the end
( there are Even more in salvation, these I use to prove a point, they are chalk and cheese and you will agree all are held with passionate defence of them)

They Are alternative beliefs.
And because no two of them can be simultaneously true , they are mutually exclusive.
And because of that only one of them can be Gods truth.
The other two must be heresy.

Now use the list of doctrinal categories which I gave you , all of which have several mutually exclusive variants ( and other doctrinal areas too) and taking permutations of them, you easily get to thousands of mutually exclusive belief sets.

Only one permutation can be gods truth.

Do you agree? It is night follows day as logic.

Ever since the reformation these variants have proliferated - prior to it there was very little variation, though there was some . ( eg thomist and molinist predestination) or Filioque.. one of the parts of the orthodox schism


Or as Luther lamented as a direct result of his letting pandora out of the box, with the falasy of sola scriptura " every milkmaid now has their own doctrine"
So it is not just my opinion, or even just a catholic one, that allowing all to interpret scripture has proliferated belief sets at an alarming rate.

I would appreciate the courtesy of addressing the point I make, rather than a wide ranging attack on Catholicism?

Each issue you raise deserves its own conversation. E.g. Infallibility - even you believe it! God speaking through authors of scripture for example, without which you cannot regard it as truth. So the question is not whether but who and when.

Jesus refers to the power too, giving the power to " bind and loose" to both individually to successors of Peter and the apostles jointly.
That is to give authoritative decisions on doctrine. Which is what that phrase meant to 1st century Jews. Which is the power used at councils.Which is preesumably why the pillar of truth is the church

Athanasius377 said:

So in other words even though the source cited is demonstrably wrong it fits your narrative about regarding "mutually exclusive belief sets", what ever that means you will continue to cite it. Perhaps you should be aware the author also states that approximately four million people were executed under the Inquisition in the very next chapter. A good response from NCR can be found here.


Rome has changed and continue to change Even in the last 150 years. Try and reconcile the Syllabus of Errors with the documents of Vatican II. And let us not forget the millions of people that simply stopped going to church in the wake of the liturgical reforms of Vatican II and have never returned.


The problem the modern RC has is that he/she assumes that history and the early church fathers are on their side. I too thought this was the case. When I actually read them, and I mean entire books they wrote I found out there was no unanimous consent of the fathers that Rome likes to point to. It doesn't exist. Some of them have great insight on passages of scripture (funny, they seemed to know what scripture was before the fourth century without the councils of Carthage, Hippo and Rome). Some are arguing against heretics such as Marcion or against groups like the Montanists. Some such as Irenaeus of Lyon are completely off kilter when he says Christ was more than 50 years old when he was crucified. What you don't find are arguments for the Roman distinctives like the Marian Dogmas or Purgatory prior to the fifth century because they had not been invented yet.

So to answer your question about the New Testament canon in brief. The early christians began collecting the writings that would later consist of the NT very early. The earliest examples from the ancient papyri can place the date as early as the first decades of the second century. Fragments and texts suggest an even earlier date. What you find are the four gospels being bound in a codex, or the gospels along with a collection of Paul's letters and so on. The early church was even able to refute a heretic such as Marcion (died ca. 160) because they knew what scripture was. In fact, it seemed that in order to earn respect as a christian writer you would have written a book against Marcion. So how is this all possible without a functioning monarchical papacy in Rome? Because the NT is self authenticating. All of this took place long before the councils of Carthage, Hippo and Rome. The early christians seemed to understand this as there was very little disagreement of what was the NT. A good discussion of this subject can be found here. Rome did not make a definitive decision on canon until 1546 at Trent. I don't think you are suggesting that prior we did not know what the canon was prior.

As to the councils and creeds to which are you referring? Nicea? Chalcedon? Both have creeds and canons. Nicaea's canons can be found here and I am assuming you already know the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed by heart. Chalcedonian creed can be found here. Notice the language, "handed down from the fathers", no mention of edicts coming from the papacy. The fathers used scripture as their rule and formulated the one holy catholic and apostolic faith that was handed down to them

Regards Baptism of infants the issue has been settled. Acts 2:37-41: (ESV)
Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” 40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

The promise was made by God to children as well as adults.

Look, the Anglican church in the west has huge problems as does the Roman church. Places in Africa and the Southern Cone are far more orthodox. But things are not so rosey across the Tiber. Until the Pope or the bishops begin actually enforcing discipline on their members don't tell me how great church teaching is. From the outside it seems you can believe anything so longer as you pledge allegiance to Rome. I have a local EWTN radio station that I occasionally listen to on the way home from work and it seems people like Al Kresta have to constantly reassure the flock that it is quite normal for the Pope to give an award to Dutch politician whose sole notoriety is that she encourages the killing of the unborn. Listen, I know the Archbishop of Canterbury (Which we are not in communion with) is a child in a grown up world but my doctrine doesn't assign to him the charism of infallibility.

Click to expand...

Unofficial Reverand Alex said:

Being Catholic, I'm very comforted by my denomination's historical claim, and deep entrenchment in Holy Scripture & Holy Tradition; Orthodox feel the same way.
For the purpose of this thread, I'm not looking to debate Catholicism/Orthodoxy v. Protestants; the above statement was just very brief background on how I and many others appreciate our denomination.
My question to the Protestants is, how do you settle on one denomination or church? Without any sort of authority, be it the papacy (pope) or councils of bishops to keep your church on track, how do you figure out that your particular denomination is more like what Jesus & the Apostles taught than any other? Because when you get deep enough into theology, there can only be 1 true church; if you stay protestant, how do you determine which one that is?
By the way, there's double meaning in the (No Debating Catholics/Orthodox). I don't want protestants debating Catholics/Orthodox, and I don't want Catholics/Orthodox debating protestants. For the purpose of this thread, I just want Protestants to discuss (and maybe debate) how you choose a Church that doesn't have the historical claim of Catholics & Orthodox, how you choose which of the denominations is the best.
Lord, forgive me for perpetuating us/them mentalities, and treating Your children & followers as seperate groups instead of the 1 body of Christ.

Click to expand...

How do Protestants Settle on a Denomination?

Ini Mini Miny Moe, whatever SUITS ME, there I go.

PanDeVida