Are denominations like medicines?

[chilehed]

...and of course it seldom has been "one in its doctrines," let alone protected against teaching false doctrines.

Says you.

But then again, Christ did not promise that the church would never make mistakes

I'm not aware that anyone has claimed otherwise.

And does that happen by strange coincidence to be the one you are a member of perchance?

Which one do you think's been around since the time of the Apostles?

Then how do you explain the doctrine of indulgences that sparked the reformation?

What doctrine would that be? I daresay you don't really know what the doctrine is.

But really, the answer is irrelevant. By asking the question you concede that the Catholic Church is the one that was establishet by Christ, and, since Jesus promised to protect his Church from teaching false doctrine, you saying that you disagree with it only proves my original point.

 

[chilehed]

Indulgences were basically the selling of salvation or for freeing souls from purgatory for money.

Like I said, you have no clue what the real teaching of the Catholic Church is in this subject.

Also, I never admitted that the RCC is the only church Jesus started. The Orthodox Catholic Church actually makes that same claim.

The Protestant Deformation didn't arise out of the Orthodox Catholic Church.

If you’re going to make the claims that you make then you should at least be a student of church history.

I suggest that you take your own advice.

 

[Albion]

Says you.

Says history. That's easily verified.

Which one do you think's been around since the time of the Apostles?

Several have. The Eastern Orthodox most obviously.

 

[Albion]

The Catholic doctrine of indulgences has changed over the centuries due to the counter reformation and isn’t the same as it was in the Middle Ages. I am well aware of what the doctrine of indulgences is.

And so have teachings on the Papacy, Limbo, Purgatory, Baptism, Abortion, and many more.

 

[chilehed]

The Catholic doctrine of indulgences has changed over the centuries due to the counter reformation and isn’t the same as it was in the Middle Ages.

As I've said, you have no clue what you're talking about.

I am well aware of what the doctrine of indulgences is. Did you even read the links I posted?

The wikipedia article wasn't too bad, but the other was so out to lunch that the fact that you post both of them as if they are reconcilable with each other proves again that you have no clue what you're saying.

 

[chilehed]

Says history. That's easily verified.

Nope. But even if it were true, it wouldn't contradict the point I made.

 

[chilehed]

Did you read the entire Wikipedia Article including the section that covers the Middle Ages?

You mean that part about "in the later Middle Ages growth of considerable abuses occurred", and "Many of these quaestores exceeded official Church doctrine, and promised rewards like salvation from eternal damnation in return for money"??

I guess you missed that part.

Again over time the Catholic doctrine has changed.

Again, you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

I see no reason to continue here.

 

[Hmm]

I see no reason to continue here

Well, I hope you do. I think you argue your case well and exchanges of ideas like this are very informative to the lay person like me.

 

[Bruce Leiter]

Are denominations like medicines where different ones work best for different folk. And so they're good things rather than bad and we should choose the one that works best for us?

For example, I believe in free will and so I would never be able to adopt a denomination that didn't acknowledge that. And it wouldn't be because of a lack of understanding of that denomination. It would simply not be possible for me ever to disbelieve in something that to me is self-evidently true. It would twist me in knots and make me feel phony if I tried. And I feel the same about some of the defining beliefs of other denominations.

So I think that, in practice, we seek out a church that feels right for us, and perhaps often we won't be able to articulate why it does so. Of course, we shouldn't expect to find a church where we agree with everything that's taught and we should always be open to being challenged, but on the issues that go to the heart of what we personally believe, isn't it reasonable to select a denomination that reasonably matches that?

I think it's more important to find a denomination and church that agrees most with the Bible's teachings, not my personal preferences.

 

[Hmm]

I think it's more important to find a denomination and church that agrees most with the Bible's teachings, not my personal preferences.

I agree but the topic is about deeply held personal values and beliefs, not preferences.

 

[TheGoodLight]

I've accepted the adventure of trying to discern what's right in this regard (prayerfully and with an open heart toward the will of the Spirit, of course). I've taken my lumps doing it, but hey, that's what we as Christians are called to do.

 

[concretecamper]

Haha, the typical Anti-Catholics never fail to use any thread to bash His Church.

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

DUE TO MULTIPLE RULE VIOLATIONS

MOD HAT OFF​