Doubts about denominations

[Dansiph]

It seems, from this reading, that you have been moved in the direction of Protestantism, at least to some variety of it. But did you get stopped at "reading and consulting God's word?"

What is the reason for being now in doubt? You mentioned reading, but has that included studies into the differences between the various churches and also visiting the ones you feel are closest to whatever profile of doctrine and practice you think right?

I'll try and give some broad information. The main reason for doubt is I just see Catholic beliefs as being potentially legitimate. Catholicism was painted completely differently to the reality I have recently seen.

I felt and to some extent still feel I came to saving faith through Baptist teaching. I also ascribed some of it to the King James Bible. When I heard it spoken, simple and strong verses like Acts 16:31 for example, I was immediately drawn in.

When I first became a Christian I wasn't aware of there being major differences between denominations. I did think about either an Anglican or Methodist church. Anglican because the Priest there used to come to my primary school - which was CoE - and play guitar. Methodist because it's on my Grandparents street.

I then realised many Baptist beliefs are different. I also realised the IFB stance on the KJV. So for two years that has been my stance. My reasons for not attending church are many. Partly reasons, partly excuses. Recently it's been Corona Virus. I also think it's interesting that if I would have attended my nearest Independent Baptist church I would have most likely stuck with it.

In the last month I began looking into Presbyterian beliefs but I didn't feel distressed about it. Then Catholicism sprung up and has really been a spanner in the works.

 

[crossnote]

I've been reading and consulting God's Word for two years. That didn't stop me coming to this predicament though.

Part of the issue is Catholics don't see the Bible as their only authority. There's also the historical aspects like early church history. One thing which struck me was the question of the Reformation. This happened 1500 years after Jesus' time. The different perspectives on it have caused me to doubt.

First you said you have been consulting God's Word for years, then you turn around and say "Catholics don't see the Bible as their only authority". God gave us His written word for a reason and it must take precedence. When you stand before God on Judgment Day, you won't be able to say "but, but, the Pope said", no, we will be judged by what God has said.
Re: the Early Church so called....It is not early enough. I'd rather go all the way back To Moses, David, Jeremiah, Luke, Paul, Peter etc.

 

[Dansiph]

First you said you have been consulting God's Word for years, then you turn around and say "Catholics don't see the Bible as their only authority". God gave us His written word for a reason and it must take precedence. When you stand before God on Judgment Day, you won't be able to say "but, but, the Pope said", no, we will be judged by what God has said.
Re: the Early Church so called....It is not early enough. I'd rather go all the way back To Moses, David, Jeremiah, Luke, Paul, Peter etc.

It's a good point about Moses, David and other OT Prophets especially. In fact when I've heard the Catholic statement that they compiled the Bible I've usually thought "What about Moses or David etc?". In the Psalms David talks about an already compiled Bible.

The thing with the Early Church is why would it take such a big turn? Do you for example believe there's always been a remnant of those who weren't Catholic?

 

[Of the Kingdom]

The problem is now I feel I'm in a sort of limbo of doubt.

May God bless you richly, my friend. You're maturing and asking questions. That's good, but it's also a difficult time for you. May I suggest you read through and study the gospel of John, slowly. Ask Jesus to give you eyes to see what is written, and to take away the opinions you've learned from others. Just you and Jesus, reading and pondering it together as if for the first time you've ever seen it.

I want to say a bit about Christian history. I think ultimately you will want to study it in great detail. For the first three centuries, the church was mostly one loosely-connected group, and suffered severe persecution. It was said that martyrdom was the seed of the church. About 315 AD a nominal Christian captured the throne of Rome and began tolerating the church, but church and state were severely entangled from that time on.

A few groups like coptic Christians separated from the church over the next couple of centuries, so now there were several independent churches -- each one claiming to be the original, one true path, of course. East and West began to drift apart culturally, but still formally remained one. If I understand the final split correctly, it was almost accidental due to some ambassadors being rude. In any case, it made sense for the church to remain split, as they had long been at odds.

I consider that split like an amoeba splitting into two daughter cells. I don't see how you can claim one is more original than the other.

There were Waldensians and Anabaptists who objected to the Roman church. These could not claim the history, but claimed to bring needed reforms. Neither worked with the government, so were severely persecuted and almost eliminated. Martin Luther was the first reformer to find royal backing and not be destroyed by persecution. He and his followers were limited in what changes they could make because they had to please the king of their area.

Baptists and modern Mennonites claim connection to the beliefs of the Anabaptists. The baptists seem to come as much from Luther, though there was certainly Anabaptist influence, and the principle of believer's baptism definitely came from them.

May God bless you as you seek to know Him better. Please don't take my history too seriously, the truth is *much* more complex.

 

[Albion]

I'll try and give some broad information. The main reason for doubt is I just see Catholic beliefs as being potentially legitimate...When I first became a Christian I wasn't aware of there being major differences between denominations. I did think about either an Anglican or Methodist church.

Hmm. Well, an Anglican church would be similar in worship style and use of the traditional church calendar, as well as in doctrine except for some obvious e9e so that might recommend going with the CofE or the Free Church of England.

But unless there are some other beliefs and practices that you either insist upon or absolutely will not tolerate, I don't know how to advise you better except to say that there is a lot of reading material that clearly explains the important doctrinal differences between the Roman Catholic Church and each of the major Protestant ones, such as the Presbyterians and Methodists.

 

[Dansiph]

Hmm. Well, an Anglican church would be similar in worship style and use of the traditional church calendar, so that might recommend going with the CofE or the Free Church of England.

But unless there are some other beliefs and practices that you either insist upon or absolutely will not tolerate, I don't know how to advise you better except to say that there is a lot of reading material that clearly explains the important doctrinal differences between the Roman Catholic Church and each of the major Protestant ones, such as the Presbyterians and Methodists.

I appreciate you are trying to help and have helped. It's not that these denominations appeal to me it's just that my perception of what is true is a bit shaken. Which isn't comfortable to admit. It's very serious and on top of that I could easily be considered someone who was "never really saved" for even considering alternatives.

 

[chilehed]

Another problem is everyone is baised and I don't really know how to move forward. Any answers from those who have converted to Catholic or to Protestant would still be helpful though. Please keep in mind how serious of an issue this is.

I suggest careful study of a book entitled "Catholicism and Fundamentalism", by Karl Keating. I also suggest careful study of the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

 

[chilehed]

Also, if you're interested in summaries of some of the reasons I abandoned the Reformation, you can find them here and here.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

I'm not sure if this is relevant to post here.

Over the past three days I have experienced random doubts about "Protestantism". I use quotation marks because a lot of Baptists don't consider themsleves Protestant. I don't know what triggered it. So, I started looking at Catholic beliefs (mostly just to check for myself)... I was actually at a point of thinking Catholicism could be true. Today I feel I've moved back towards beliefs such as Sola Scriptura and being saved by Faith alone. The problem is now I feel I'm in a sort of limbo of doubt. This is all uncharacteristic for me.

Another problem is everyone is baised and I don't really know how to move forward. Any answers from those who have converted to Catholic or to Protestant would still be helpful though. Please keep in mind how serious of an issue this is.

Thanks

Well I didn't convert to Protestantism from Catholicism so I'm not sure I can be of any help for that question, but bear in mind that even though the Reformers said Sola Scriptura they often still had elements of Catholicism that they didn't want to get rid of (infant baptism being the most prevalent).

It might be useful to read up on history: The Reformation (protestantism); the Counter-Reformation (Catholic response) and the Radical Reformation (Anabaptism, the precursor to the modern-day Baptist).

I have most sympathy with the Anabaptists, but I'd actually advise that it probably doesn't matter all that much and you should go were you feel most comfortable. At the end of the day, Christ was crucified for all of us and the window-dressing doesn't matter too much (there might be groups I would stay away from - cults that put something other than the lordship of Jesus).

I pray you do some serious thinking and then give whichever way you go the attention it needs.

 

[Dansiph]

I suggest careful study of a book entitled "Catholicism and Fundamentalism", by Karl Keating. I also suggest careful study of the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

That book by Karl Keating is very applicable to my situation. Thanks

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I'm not sure if this is relevant to post here.

Over the past three days I have experienced random doubts about "Protestantism". I use quotation marks because a lot of Baptists don't consider themsleves Protestant. I don't know what triggered it. So, I started looking at Catholic beliefs (mostly just to check for myself)... I was actually at a point of thinking Catholicism could be true. Today I feel I've moved back towards beliefs such as Sola Scriptura and being saved by Faith alone. The problem is now I feel I'm in a sort of limbo of doubt. This is all uncharacteristic for me.

Another problem is everyone is baised and I don't really know how to move forward. Any answers from those who have converted to Catholic or to Protestant would still be helpful though. Please keep in mind how serious of an issue this is.

Thanks

Jesus Christ of Nazareth never intended the Church to be divided into denominations. So your journey has ended with He alone. Trust in Him. Be blessed.

 

[JacksBratt]

Certainly it is a serious issue; a life-changing issue!

First of all, Protestantism, if you look at the root of the word, contains all you need to know.
Protestantism is a movement by various folks who claim to know better than God who is saved and how they are saved.

Is that what you are told? taught?

Protestants are the remnants of when Martin Luther nailed a notice as to all the things that were being taught that were not quite true...

It is not about a group or denomination that think they know better than God..

In fact.. they read, study, check the original manuscripts and present the true meaning of the scriptures as they were written.

They don't, however, go by traditions that were taught by mere men... outside of the canon.

Thus... Sola Scriptura.

The first Christian Church was formed by Peter at it's head. That's the church that you want.
All other churches that exist are a protest against that Church.

Actually... all churches stem from Christ and His teaching..
At one time, the church made it illegal for a civilian to own and read the bible themselves... Now, anyone can read and own one.. as it should be.

Christ... did not come here to form a "religion" He came here to die for our sins.. and He wants us to preach this to everyone.

After He left.. as always happens... Men got involved and made all kinds of ideas and views on how we should worship Christ...

None of them are perfect... all have errors and incorrect views...

Any that teach that Christ is the messiah... was perfect without sin.. died for your sins and is your savior.... that there is no way to eternal life without accepting that... and we should treat others as we want to be treated and live each day trying to be more like Christ was...... is on the right track..

From there.. find one that you agree with.

You have probably seen on the news lately what happens at a protest.
There is no worshiping of God, there is no recognition of God, and there is certainly no obedience to God. There is, however, a great lifting up of man's ideas of how things should be run.

Not all protests are like that horrible violent display in the US.

Luther was not burning and looting.. He simply posted the truth on the door... then was arrested. No violence.

These are not God's ways.

You.... spreading inaccurate details... that is not God's way.

The same thing happens in Protestant churches. As certain as the Sun will rise, there will always be movements within Protestant Churches for change to bend to men and women's current wants and desires.

Well, that's just plain ignorant...

Who told you all of this..

I suggest you check up on what you are saying. As my grandfather said..

"He who knows not... and thinks he knows.......is a fool".

You're really pushing to make that a very true statement... of yourself.

 

[PaulCyp1]

How could anyone accept Sola Scriptura, after seeing the tremendous damage it has done to Christianity since it was dreamed up a few hundred years ago? Thousands of conflicting manmade denominations, no two of which teach the same beliefs. Truth cannot conflict with truth, so untruth is obviously rampant in this ungodly tradition, which exists in open defiance of the stated will of Jesus Christ concerning His followers, which was and still is "That they all may be ONE, even as I and My heavenly Father are ONE".

 

[crossnote]

It's a good point about Moses, David and other OT Prophets especially. In fact when I've heard the Catholic statement that they compiled the Bible I've usually thought "What about Moses or David etc?". In the Psalms David talks about an already compiled Bible.

The thing with the Early Church is why would it take such a big turn? Do you for example believe there's always been a remnant of those who weren't Catholic?

I believe the big turn happened under Constantine where the State invited the Church under it's wings of protection. Something Jesus never intended, saying "My Kingdom is not of this world..."

John 18:36 KJV
[36] Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

 

[SteveIndy]

I'm not sure if this is relevant to post here.

Over the past three days I have experienced random doubts about "Protestantism". I use quotation marks because a lot of Baptists don't consider themsleves Protestant. I don't know what triggered it. So, I started looking at Catholic beliefs (mostly just to check for myself)... I was actually at a point of thinking Catholicism could be true. Today I feel I've moved back towards beliefs such as Sola Scriptura and being saved by Faith alone. The problem is now I feel I'm in a sort of limbo of doubt. This is all uncharacteristic for me.

Another problem is everyone is baised and I don't really know how to move forward. Any answers from those who have converted to Catholic or to Protestant would still be helpful though. Please keep in mind how serious of an issue this is.

Thanks

This is a very serious issue because what is at issue is "truth" itself. I was a Protestant for very, very, many years and could not get satisfaction from any denomination concerning the words of Jesus in Matthew 5,6,and7 The Sermon on the Mount. Protestants and Catholics do not love their enemies they are all more Republican or Democrat than they are Christian. These same Christians are famous for condemning their enemies, They also serve two masters; they vote and elect a man to rule over them instead of Christ. They join the military and kill their enemies, or the police force, they purchase guns and other weapons to protect themselves all against the plain words of Jesus and His Apostles. After studying the true history of the Church I discovered that the Protestants and the Catholics both were wrong and followed their flesh and Zwingli, Luther, and Calvin and linked arms with the state to put down the true Christians who chose to follow Jesus only, the Anabaptist. The Bible says that only a few will find their way out of the world and be saved yet we see innumerable Churches and "believers" who all say they are Christian. Maybe the Bible is wrong you think? No! we are wrong. The protestant Church along with the Catholic Church and all the craze sects and cults have fed these people a bill of goods and the people bought it. The first 300 years of the Church were vastly different than what we see up and down Main Street and for the next 1200 years, the Dark Ages of the Catholic Church hid the truth from the people. In 1525 a small group of men, Conrad Grebel, Felix Manz, George Blurock, and Michael Satler rediscovered the truth and came out of the Catholic Church and started a fire that neither the Protestants nor the Catholics could put out, they were called by their enemies "anabaptists" or re-baptizers because they rejected infant baptism. They also reject violence, jury duty, and military service. needless to say, they were hunted down and killed. The Bible again became true when it says that "unless a seed of corn falls to the ground and dies it remains alone" those words were proven to be true, this hand full of seeds are still producing fruit today and growing. The Bible also tells us that truth is like a man who while walking through a field discovers a buried treasure and sells everything he owns and purchases that field. Or, it is like the pearl of great price that if purchased will demand everything a person owns. Zwingli died with a sword in his hand trying to kill his enemy, Luther in his own writing declares his "Reformation" a failure and that he could not get enough true believers together to have to Bible study. Now we have come to the end of the age and the Protestant and Catholic Church still have not discovered the truth of loving their enemies and the Bible says they will be rejected and turned away. It doesn't have to be that way. The Holy Spirit is looking for those who are hungry for the truth and whose hearts are ready for a drastic transformation, better known as a brand new birth.

 

[crossnote]

[
[18] For

 

[1watchman]

I've been reading and consulting God's Word for two years. That didn't stop me coming to this predicament though.

Part of the issue is Catholics don't see the Bible as their only authority. There's also the historical aspects like early church history. One thing which struck me was the question of the Reformation. This happened 1500 years after Jesus' time. The different perspectives on it have caused me to doubt.

There are many opinions about religion and Christianity, so we really need Bible-only studies. I recommend one pose such question at the sound site: Biblecounsel.net on the Internet. They impress me as holding to Bible-only with clear explanations.

 

[Yekcidmij]

I use quotation marks because a lot of Baptists don't consider themsleves Protestant.

Never heard of that claim. Weird, I agree.

I don't know what triggered it. So, I started looking at Catholic beliefs (mostly just to check for myself)... I was actually at a point of thinking Catholicism could be true. Today I feel I've moved back towards beliefs such as Sola Scriptura and being saved by Faith alone. The problem is now I feel I'm in a sort of limbo of doubt. This is all uncharacteristic for me.

Well, an honest humility isn't necessarily harmful. Hubris, on the other hand, does nobody any good.

Another problem is everyone is baised

Of course. Nothing will ever change this.

Any answers from those who have converted to Catholic or to Protestant would still be helpful though.

I don't know why either of these cases should constitute an epistemic priority. I don't think that cross sectarian converts necessarily have more of a claim to knowledge or wisdom than others. For example, and since I'm a Protestant, I don't think people should give extra weight to the reasoning of cross converts from Roman Catholicism. They could be someone who is either unstable or confused, for all I know.

 

[Dansiph]

Never heard of that claim. Weird, I agree.



Well, an honest humility isn't necessarily harmful. Hubris, on the other hand, does nobody any good.



Of course. Nothing will ever change this.



I don't know why either of these cases should constitute an epistemic priority. I don't think that cross sectarian converts necessarily have more of a claim to knowledge or wisdom than others. For example, and since I'm a Protestant, I don't think people should give extra weight to the reasoning of cross converts from Roman Catholicism. They could be someone who is either unstable or confused, for all I know.

The reason I asked for the opinions of converts is I started to see people's conversion as potentially legit whereas I previously thought the opposite.

 

[Athanasius377]

The reason I asked for the opinions of converts is I started to see people's conversion as potentially legit whereas I previously thought the opposite.

Greetings. You sound exactly they way I did several years ago. I basically come from the SSPV. They are a very traditional catholic body not in communion with Rome. I agree with @Albion in that it will take time with research and prayer. The reason I left is while Rome is ancient she isn’t ancient enough. When you investigate the history of the church you won’t find modern denominations but you will find a plurality of belief and worship. While some have recommended some collections of the ECF I would stay away from the Jurgens text on the Roman side and the Thomas oden for the Protestant side. Read what the ECF actually wrote. The site Newadvent.com or a scholarly collection of ECF writings. What you will find is they don’t sound like modern RCC or Protestants. They sound like the ECF. The problem I have with the RCC is that a believer in the second century would be considered a heretic in the technical sense of the word based on modern Roman dogma. If these truths are eternal this should not be the case. So that lead me to the Orthodox Church and Anglicanism. Orthodoxy has much cultural baggage a western Christian has to deal with. Whilst a traditional Anglican or a Lutheran does not. Of course modern Anglicanism is a very broad tent Yet when when I look at the two I see something where ancient Christianity exists in a way the RCC and Orthodoxy does not. Much of their dogma comes from a post apostolic period. In some case much much later.

just my two cents.