Doubts about denominations

[Edstano]

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.

 

[Edstano]

Your concern should not be what denomination to join but getting saved.
Romans 10:13, "Everyone who calls upon the Lord will be saved." You should be looking at getting saved, that's done by calling upon the Lord to save you, by acknowledging that you are a sinner, you want repent and turn to God, believe that Jesus died and paid for all of your past, present and future sins, by His blood, He was buried and on the third day, He arose from the dead. If you by faith honestly believe that, you then are saved.

Then read the Bible beginning with the book of John. When Peter preached that same message the 3,000 people who believed and heard it, they all got saved. They had no denomination, except for being called Christians. If you do what's being said above, I'm sure Jesus, will send you to the church He wants you in.

 

[Dave L]

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

Denominations are spoken against by Paul as a symptom of carnal mindedness.

“For while one saith, ‘I am of Paul’, and another, ‘I am of Apollos’, are ye not carnal?” 1 Corinthians 3:4 (NCPB)

If you consider, denominations and institutional churches are nothing more than religious business franchises that cater to Christians of a certain bent. The Church in fact is the body of Christ, not the franchises. The franchises cause division and sectarianism.

Any two or more believers fellowshipping have Christ in their midst and they constitute a church.

 

[longwait]

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

If denominations and their traditions and practices confuses you just leave all that behind and follow what the Bible says.

 

[GirdYourLoins]

Keep praying about it until you feel the Lord leads you to a particular church.

One of the problems with churches is they have human beings in them and unlike God non of us is perfect so neither is any church. And if anyone does claim they or their church is perfect they are suffering from pride imo so are not perfect. And as one of my old pastors used to say, if you find the perfect church, dont join it because you will ruin it. Dont expect to find somewhere perfect so try to find somewhere you can grow and feel comfortable at. I would say a bible believeing church as there are some who either dont believe the bible or think they have revelations that supersede it.

 

[Clare73]

...and we may add that, despite the POV expressed in that post you responded to, the Roman Catholic Church has itself been reformed many times throughout history, thanks to its own Reformers.

Specifically, most of what Martin Luther wanted--but which the RCC wouldn't consider in his own time--has quietly been adopted by the Catholic Church in more recent times. So, although it took awhile, Luther was vindicated.

Are you saying Roman Catholicism and Luther are now in agreement on justification by faith alone?

 

[Dansiph]

If denominations and their traditions and practices confuses you just leave all that behind and follow what the Bible says.

Interestingly I have today returned to the Bible. My doubts were causing me to neglect it. When I read the Bible things have come flooding back.

 

[Albion]

Are you saying Roman Catholicism and Luther are now in agreement on justification by faith alone?

Sort of. After a series of talks a few years back, the Catholic and Lutheran negotiators issued a joint statement that bent over backwards to show that the differences on that issue were not very much. The position paper made it seem as though they were really in agreement and affirmed Justification by Faith.

But it was not that particular doctrine or practice that I had in mind when I wrote the post you are referring to. It was instead a list of other ones that the Roman Catholic Church rejected and criticized in the past but fairly recently adopted for itself.

Included were congregational participation in the liturgy, which was a biggie with Protestants and opposed by the Vatican. People may be surprised to hear about that. Then there was having the Mass be done in the language of the people and also done so that the congregation could both see it clearly and hear the words. Both of those features were uncommon in Luther's day and the last one was pointedly rejected as recently as my earlier days.

Congregational singing, serious preaching, allowing women to be altar servers and Eucharistic ministers, and of course, throwing out some of the Apocryphal books of the Bible. All were done or adopted by the Roman Catholic Church after denouncing Luther for daring to raise the issues.

Oh yes, and Purgatory is currently being redefined out of existence in the RCC, although Indulgences--which were believed in and sold in Luther's day and which touched off the Reformation--have significance only if there is a Purgatory operating in the way the Church taught it until recently.

 

[Hermit76]

I'm a former Protestant pastor. All of my studies took me to the Orthodox Church. All doubts were reconciled with their teachings, practice, and consistency.

 

[JSRG]

Specifically, most of what Martin Luther wanted--but which the RCC wouldn't consider in his own time--has quietly been adopted by the Catholic Church in more recent times. So, although it took awhile, Luther was vindicated.

Huh? If anything the Catholic Church has doubled down on most of the things Luther criticized.

Did they accept Sola Scriptura? Nope.
Did they remove the deuterocanonical books? Nah.
Did they get rid of praying to saints? Nope.
Did they lower papal authority? They went the opposite route.
Did they renounce Purgatory? No.

Exactly what things did Luther want that were adopted in more recent times? The various clerical abuses he railed against (most notably indulgence abuse) were not only considered in his own time, but they started working to correct said abuses even back then. That's hardly recent. The only "recent" thing I can think of that could plausibly be considered a victory was some changes to the liturgy, like it being moved to the vernacular, but even that was hardly "quietly" adopted.

 

[Clare73]

Sort of. After a series of talks a few years back, the Catholic and Lutheran negotiators issued a joint statement that bent over backwards to show that the differences on that issue were not very much. The position paper made it seem as though they were really in agreement and affirmed Justification by Faith.

However, there can be no "sort of" regarding justification.

"Good works" and" faith alone" are mutually exclusive, the one automatically excludes the other in justification (declared "not guilty," given right standing before God).

That is the first and non-negotiable principle of salvation.

 

[James A]

The reason Catholicism and Orthodoxy seem similar is that they are the original Church. You'll often hear protestants attacking Catholics for reasons that go back hundreds of years, but if one attacks the Roman Church hard enough they will find themselves attacking Christianity itself. It is a long story.

Orthodoxy may seem foreign to you because it is foreign. But then so is the bible. The Christian bible is written in Greek. The Orthodox Church of Greece is Greek, not surprisingly. It's as much to say that Protestantism with its arguments over doctrines and translations of the bible is foreign to Christianity.

There is also Oriental Orthodox Church which is arguably closest to the early church

 

[James A]

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.

You may want to read Orthodox Study Bible as well. Not only this is one of very few English translation of the Greek OT read by Jesus and apostles, it contains tons of notes regarding the the orthodox doctrines.

 

[Bobber]

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

My advice is a little bit different than most I guess. I think you better make sure you're putting relationship with Jesus FIRST and even more important than what type of institution of religion you go to. Do you KNOW Jesus, have you asked him to come into your life causing you to become born again. Is your spirit in right vital relationship with him right now. Many can be rank and file members of churches within Catholicism or Protestantism but they really may not KNOW Jesus, and when I say know I don't mean like who he was from a historical stand point but do you have an actual relationship with the Lord?

 

[HatGuy]

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

My advice is you don't make a leap into one or the other too soon. Sometimes these things need time to germinate. If I leapt too early I would have been a Charismatic turned Catholic turned Reformed turned Lutheran turned Wesleyan by now. But what's interesting is when you do a lot of study you find there is more agreement than people realise. The "big ones" like justification by faith are a pretty big deal between Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and everyone else - but give yourself time to let what you're learning germinate; test your beliefs out a bit; and you'll eventually come to a conviction you feel comfortable with.

 

[Neostarwcc]

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

I was raised Catholic as a Child until I was about 19 or so. When I turned 19 I became an Atheist because I didnt believe in Jesus anymore and I thought Atheists had some really good arguments.

Many years later In November of 2013 I "officially" converted to Christianity. For the first month or so I was Catholic and went to a Catholic Church but I found myself again questioning the Catholic faith which I was pretty much raised was the "only" Christian faith.

Then God introduced me to Protestantism and I considered myself an Arminian Baptist for a while. After several years of studying theology I became a Calvinist because I had found that the Reformed faith had a lot of scripture correct from Genesis to Revelation. I knew the verses arguing for Arminianism but honestly the evidence for Reformed kind of trumped the 3-4 verses that might have suggested Arminianism.

But regardless if you're Reformed or Arminian there honestly there is a LOT of biblical evidence for the five Solas and basic Protestantism in general. I officially left the Catholic church because there were a lot of problems with their key doctrines and practices. Had I known that my mother would have accepted me becoming a Protestant and later a Calvinist when I was growing up I probably would have been a Christian/Protestant for life. But, it was in God's plan for me to convert later in life.

If you're interested in the evidences for the Solas and basic Protestantism you're free to PM me and I'll give you a lot of the basics I'm educated on both sides of the coin. I dont really want to turn this thread into a Catholic vs Protestant debate.

 

[Albion]

Huh? If anything the Catholic Church has doubled down on most of the things Luther criticized.

First, there were many areas of disagreement between them. It doesn't take having the Roman Catholic Church come around on every last one of them to make the point I did.

Second, I have already identified a number of issues where the RCC has more recently agreed with Luther's stands.

Did they accept Sola Scriptura? Nope.

That's right. It's no.

Did they remove the deuterocanonical books? Nah.

Wrong! The RCC did not remove all of those books but she did remove some of them.

Did they get rid of praying to saints? Nope.

That's correct. It's still part of the church's teaching.

Did they lower papal authority? They went the opposite route.

You have a point there, but it might be argued that she has both increased and decreased the position of the Pope.

Did they renounce Purgatory? No.

That's wrong. While retaining a belief in "Purgatory," (which the church must do or else renounce the authority of the church council which created Purgatory), she has all but renounced it. This can be verified by consulting the Catechism or checking the words of the Pope himself and most any priest you know. The function, nature, and meaning of Purgatory now is nothing like the traditional view which the RCC taught for centuries.

 

[Albion]

However, there can be no "sort of" regarding justification.

You wouldn't think so, but when two opposing sides get together and negotiate in the hopes of narrowing their historic differences, they are capable of coming up with a formal statement that seems almost to say that agreement was reached.

 

[Running2win]

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.

Similar search and questions for me. I classify my self as Non-Denomination because I tend to believe Denominations are pretty well man made ways of fellowship. There are many ways to "do" Church, the key thing is to know what and why you believe what you do.

Scripture first, then a place to fellowship second. Not all of us have a big choice of the Church we can attend because of geography or distance. You might have to settle for one that is not your flavor, but fellowship is important and we are told not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together as we see the day of the Lord/Christ approach. Why? In order to be a witness for God in the world, and to encourage one another in the faith.

It use to be more simple with less choices so it's very important to know the key doctrines of the faith and then lesser ones that you can agree to disagree on.

There are saved persons in just about every Denomination (if they are trusting in Jesus alone for the salvation of their souls). I think a study of the different Churches in Revelation confirms this.

And as we quickly approach the second coming of Christ our Denomination will not matter, only do we identify with the Jesus Christ of the Bible, and are we trusting in Him in faith alone. God will sort all the other things out.

 

[JSRG]

First, there were many areas of disagreement between them. It doesn't take having the Roman Catholic Church come around on every last one of them to make the point I did.

Sure, it wouldn't have to come around on every point. But it does require you to say which points you're referring to.

Second, I have already identified a number of issues where the RCC has more recently agreed with Luther's stands.

The only issues you seem to have identified are either liturgical ones (which I already mentioned) or the claim about throwing out deuterocanonical books, which will be addressed next.

Wrong! The RCC did not remove all of those books but she did remove some of them.

Even if this is an accurate description of what happened, this was done at the Council of Trent. So your claim that this was something "the RCC wouldn't consider in his [Luther's] own time" is incorrect.

I suppose someone could claim that the statement that "the RCC wouldn't consider it in his own time" but would "in more recent times" is sort of true because Trent's declaration of the biblical canon was given after Luther's death (by only a few months, though, I believe), which could qualify as being more "recent" than Luther's own time was. But that would be so pedantic it needs no real response.

That's wrong. While retaining a belief in "Purgatory," (which the church must do or else renounce the authority of the church council which created Purgatory), she has all but renounced it. This can be verified by consulting the Catechism or checking the words of the Pope himself and most any priest you know.

Let's check out the Catechism, then:

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. the tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.

1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin." From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God. The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.

How is this explicit statement of Purgatory a case of them having "all but renounced" it?

I don't know what you mean by "words of the Pope himself." Can you provide the "words" in question? I know that Francis has offered plenary indulgences. As for priests, last I checked, priests were still doing things like mass intentions for the dead, so there's Purgatory again.

The function, nature, and meaning of Purgatory now is nothing like the traditional view which the RCC taught for centuries.

In what way, exactly?