How do "Christians" know which Denomination is the Truth?

[Eight Foot Manchild]

100% certainty isn't a luxury in most areas of life, and that may be especially true in matters of faith and religion.

How can I know, with 100% certainty, that Lutheran Christianity is the right one? Or how to even know if Christianity broadly is utterly and absolutely true? I can't, and I don't.

The only thing a person can do, at the end of the day, is to seek, search, and go by conviction and conscience. I am confident in my Lutheran-ness, not because I have some kind of absolute certainty about it, but because of reasons I've expressed above. I am confident that the apostolic witness concerning the Person and works of Jesus are true, and I believe that that witness is faithfully conveyed in the writings which make up the New Testament, and that they were faithfully passed on to succeeding generations of Christians who continued to believe, confess, and practice that religion born out of the original followers of Jesus. That catholic, historic, orthodox Christianity is a true, accurate, and faithful inheritance of the apostolic deposit of faith. And I am confident that the reform movement that came to be known as "Lutheranism" isn't a departure from that ancient catholic Christianity, it is not a departure from the apostolic witness, and tradition passed on through the centuries; but is a faithful adherence to it. To be Lutheran is to be a faithful catholic Christian and member of the holy catholic faith. Thus when I confess in the Creed faith in "one holy catholic and apostolic Church" I am professing faith in the catholic Christian Church which Jesus Christ instituted two thousand years ago, and which has been confessed, professed publicly throughout the world for the last two millennia.

And I make this confession not to say that other Christians in other communions, traditions, or denominations are not Christians; I am not excluding them from the Communion of Saints by making my confession. I am instead saying that this is where I make my confession and make my stand as a matter of faith, it is where conviction and conscience has brought me and, as I already said, at the end of the day one can only go with conviction and conscience.

Perhaps Catholics are right. Perhaps the Orthodox are right. Or perhaps Christianity isn't true at all, perhaps Judaism is right, or Islam, or Buddhism. Or perhaps no religion is true and atheism is correct position--all those are distinct possibilities that I acknowledge as possiblities. But those aren't where my convictions and my conscience have taken me. And while I can dress it up theologically, to speak of the guidance of the Holy Spirit (and I do believe this is true as well), that's an inconsequential argument to make in this context since it demands a high level of a priori assumption on the inherent truthfulness of "the Holy Spirit" as a concept at all.

So I'm not going to stand here and tell people to be what I am, as though I've attained some level of absolute certainty and knowledge, or as though I have attained some level of authority. I can only, instead, speak of my own experiences, my own convictions, and my own conscience about where I am.

-CryptoLutheran

Now, there's that Christian humility I hear so much about, but virtually never see. Here, here.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The inherent difficulty is that no denomination can prove that they have the true path to salvation, AND the problem is where people who think they are justified and saved may not be at all. Christianity provides no guidelines. Thus, a Lutheran and a Baptist and an Adventist may all be unsaved, and only a Catholic is, or vice versa.

Part of the problem in the underlying assumption is that Christians are, on the whole, engaged in a contest with one another, claiming that salvation is exclusively found in our "brand". That does happen, but it's not the common experience for the vast majority of Christians in the vast majority of churches/communions/denominations/etc.

For the vast majority of us we have convictions about where we are at, that is, we wouldn't be X kind of Christian unless we believed in its truthfulness as an expression of the Christian religion. At the same time very few of us, comparatively, think one has to be X kind of Christian in order to find salvation; because even in our differences (and those differences can be quite drastic at times) there is a recognition of our common Christianity. We might express this as speaking toward our common trust in Jesus, and to our common Baptism. Speaking as a Lutheran when one is baptized, one isn't baptized as a "Lutheran" one is baptized as a Christian. So whether that baptism happens in a Catholic church or a Baptist church (for example) it's still Baptism and makes one baptized. And baptism makes one a Christian, and that baptism brings one into the community of faith where one regularly hears the Gospel and receives the Sacraments, and that is itself the heart of the Christian life. As such I don't worry about whether or not Baptists, Catholics, or Methodists are saved, I have the same confidence in their salvation on account of God's promises as I do my own. And I have no trouble calling them sister and brother. This isn't a uniquely Lutheran sentiment either, this sentiment (perhaps expressed in other ways) is found throughout the spectrum of Christian belief. And Catholic Christians, Orthodox Christians, and Methodist Christians (again, just examples), likewise don't struggle to confess and recognize one another as Christians, sharing in a common faith in Jesus, and a common baptism.

The idea that salvation is tied to "club membership" simply doesn't tend to happen among mainstream Christian thought, we even often recognize that there may be many who don't call themselves Christian who are not cut off from salvation; simply because we confess that not all things have been revealed to us and we should be open to the hope of salvation toward the world as found in God's promises. At the end of all things we aren't the ones who get to say who is "in" and who is "out", we aren't the judges of the quick and the dead, but believe we all will stand before the one Judge of all. This sentiment is hardly new, but can be found in Christian writing and thought throughout history, including our own Scriptures; St. Augustine in his City of God (IIRC) speaks of the distinct probability of their being wolves within and sheep without; that we have brothers that we may not recognize right now as brothers even as much as there are those who call themselves Christians right now who, well as Christ Himself even said, "Not all who say to Me 'Lord, Lord'" belong to Him. Which is why Christian thought, throughout history, has placed emphasis on grace and faith. That salvation is the work of God's own graciousness toward the world, and that are invited to trust in the gracious God who encounters us in Jesus. Faith isn't principally about having our i's dotted and t's crossed concerning our beliefs, but rather, hoping and trusting in what God has done, is doing, and will do through Jesus. That kind of faith admits we aren't the ones in charge, but rather hope in the One who is.

I speak in rather broad terms because I am speaking of Christianity broadly. One can, of course, find plenty of examples to the contrary. Because there are Christians who preach a far more exclusive form of our religion, even to the point of saying one must be X, do Y, and believe every Z. But at the broadest level, that simply isn't the broad experience of Christianity, and in the most general sense isn't the way we live our lives, both in our communities of faith or in relation toward our neighbor.

And to speak of that broadness, I think you can look to any slice of culture, for example CF here. It's about looking at the fact that Christianity is a global institution and is practiced by ordinary people, living ordinary lives. There is a tendency to conflate religiosity with religious intensity. And I'm one to argue that if you want to know what Christian living looks like, it's not in the loudest members shouting from the roof tops; it's in the nameless, faceless regular people who are just going about their lives, trying to live their faith in the world by simply being human to one another.

-CryptoLuthearn

 

[Nihilist Virus]

A TL;DR version: I wanted to take seriously the question of what has been believed and confessed since the beginning. I believed that to get there meant I had to look into the history of the Christian religion. Lutheranism is where I ended up, basically on accident, because it took seriously the historic catholic faith and provided a lexicon by which to address major issues of theology that I didn't see elsewhere. If I wasn't a Lutheran I'd either be Anglican (Episcopalian here in the US), Orthodox, or Catholic--and most likely in that order. I take the history and catholicity of the Christian religion very seriously, and could not in good conscience be part of a faith community that didn't plug itself into that history and tradition.

-CryptoLutheran

How can you take the Catholic Church seriously, knowing that they would still be protecting child rapists to this very day had they not been outed on the matter? Shouldn't they be forcibly dissolved for the criminal institution that they are, rather than be considered a "faith community"?

 

[ViaCrucis]

How can you take the Catholic Church seriously, knowing that they would still be protecting child rapists to this very day had they not been outed on the matter? Shouldn't they be forcibly dissolved for the criminal institution that they are, rather than be considered a "faith community"?

See fallacy poisoning the well.

I have no desire to justify the criminal actions of many within the Catholic Church in hiding/protecting child rapists; but neither do I regard evils committed by members of an institution as evidence that the institution itself is wholly criminal. Otherwise we would do well to annhilate all social institutions, religious, political, or otherwise.

Does the scandal indicate a need toward resolution by confronting the evils perpetuated? Absolutely. Does the scandal indicate that the institution's core is irredeemable? I don't think so. The Catholic Church could exist without this problem, the path forward is addressing it head on--and I think there are many in the Catholic Church who desire exactly that, and to vilify those voices through guilt by association would be wrong.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Nihilist Virus]

See fallacy poisoning the well.

I have no desire to justify the criminal actions of many within the Catholic Church in hiding/protecting child rapists; but neither do I regard evils committed by members of an institution as evidence that the institution itself is wholly criminal. Otherwise we would do well to annhilate all social institutions, religious, political, or otherwise.

Does the scandal indicate a need toward resolution by confronting the evils perpetuated? Absolutely. Does the scandal indicate that the institution's core is irredeemable? I don't think so. The Catholic Church could exist without this problem, the path forward is addressing it head on--and I think there are many in the Catholic Church who desire exactly that, and to vilify those voices through guilt by association would be wrong.

-CryptoLutheran

The universal sentiment among Catholics is that the pope is appointed by God, and that the pope is unquestionable. All of the recent popes have been aware of the fact that the church was protecting pedophiles and forcing raped children to swear secrecy. So as a Catholic you'd be unable to question the immorality of protecting child rapists. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you abhor child rape.

 

[Tigger45]

 

[Nihilist Virus]

@ViaCrucis I looked into papal infallibility and it seems the concept is very narrow and explicitly does not cover administrative aspects. Nevertheless, it has been conclusively proven that the Roman Catholic Church is a criminal organization so I don't understand what makes you think any of their leadership can be trusted.

 

[devolved]

@ViaCrucis I looked into papal infallibility and it seems the concept is very narrow and explicitly does not cover administrative aspects. Nevertheless, it has been conclusively proven that the Roman Catholic Church is a criminal organization so I don't understand what makes you think any of their leadership can be trusted.

Corruption implies an ideal view of any given entity, and such ideals don't really exist anywhere except our imagination that many conflate with reality.

And that's where Catholics really went wrong with celebacy of priests doctrine. If you take a sexually healthy male and you inundate him with the idea that celebacy is more pure and focused means of serving God... And they are mentally punishing themselves over lusting for women... What would you expect will happen? It's not at all surprising that the result is pedophilia and a new pope to rescue the image of the church.

On the other hand, Catholicism is a lot more "cultural belief" than protestantism in general.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Corruption implies an ideal view of any given entity, and such ideals don't really exist anywhere except our imagination that many conflate with reality.

And that's where Catholics really went wrong with celebacy of priests doctrine. If you take a sexually healthy male and you inundate him with the idea that celebacy is more pure and focused means of serving God... And they are mentally punishing themselves over lusting for women... What would you expect will happen? It's not at all surprising that the result is pedophilia and a new pope to rescue the image of the church.

On the other hand, Catholicism is a lot more "cultural belief" than protestantism in general.

It may be a mere nit pick, but there is a common assumption that priestly celibacy is a doctrine, it's not actually a universal reality--there are lots of married priests in the Catholic Church. Celibacy is a "discipline" that came into prominence in the high middle ages, and is only enforced in the Latin Rite (which is the Rite most of us associate with Catholicism, e.g. using Latin, etc), Eastern Rite Catholics frequently have married priests, and there are even priests in the Latin Rite who are married through special dispensation, this tends to be the result of married clergy (such as Anglican priests) converting and receiving holy orders in Catholicism.

Since it's a discipline, that means it can change at any time.

But I also don't think the scandal is related to celibacy. Sexual predators aren't acting upon normal sexual impulses, they are predators. And what we have found, frequently, is that predators seek out spaces where they can gain positions of trust and authority.

Allowing priests to marry won't fix the problem. Taking action to expose them and bring them to justice is the necessary solution. Though it may be a good thing in and of itself.

The way Rome has been handling this problem has been more than awful, the proper course of action is to remove them from their posts, forbid them from serving in a clerical position at all, and hand them over to local civil authorities for prosecution. And, to speak frankly, I think bishops and others in positions of authority who have been hiding/protecting these predators should be dealt with both within and outside the Church--they should be properly disciplined, even by removing them from their posts, and they should also have to face consequences under local civil laws as they apply--such as aiding and abetting.

This scandal represents a gross abuse of religious authority and power, and is shameful. I don't believe it makes Catholicism wholesale corrupt, but it is a blight that cannot be tolerated.

If I discovered my Lutheran pastor was engaging in child predation I would want my church to defrock them and hand them over to the police to be tried, judged, and prosecuted. The pastoral office exists for the purpose of serving the Church, and that demands trust and accountability. If they are unable and unfit to serve their duties, they shouldn't have them.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Corruption implies an ideal view of any given entity, and such ideals don't really exist anywhere except our imagination that many conflate with reality.

And that's where Catholics really went wrong with celebacy of priests doctrine. If you take a sexually healthy male and you inundate him with the idea that celebacy is more pure and focused means of serving God... And they are mentally punishing themselves over lusting for women... What would you expect will happen? It's not at all surprising that the result is pedophilia and a new pope to rescue the image of the church.

On the other hand, Catholicism is a lot more "cultural belief" than protestantism in general.

While I agree celibacy is a stupid idea, that's not where they really went off the rails. As the Catholic Church is quick to point out, the percentage of priests who are pedophiles is roughly equal to that of the normal population.

Where they went wrong was the decades-long (or more) worldwide cover-up of child rape which ended up in a lot of child rape that was fully preventable. The Catholic Church is just a human organization that ought to be held to human standards. You can't predict who will or won't be a child rapist, so some of the child rape in the Catholic Church was unavoidable. But these pedophile priests were then protected and shipped away to another place where the rape continued. Those rapes were fully preventable, they are 100% on the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church perpetrated these atrocities on a worldwide scale over the span of multiple generations. That kind of organized crime is not possible without the entire hierarchy overseeing it, and for that reason the Catholic Church is unquestionably a criminal organization that should be held to the appropriate standards. It does not merit serious consideration as a faith group, ministry, or doer of good in any way.

 

[devolved]

Where they went wrong was the decades-long (or more) worldwide cover-up of child rape which ended up in a lot of child rape that was fully preventable. The Catholic Church is just a human organization that ought to be held to human standards. You can't predict who will or won't be a child rapist, so some of the child rape in the Catholic Church was unavoidable. But these pedophile priests were then protected and shipped away to another place where the rape continued. Those rapes were fully preventable, they are 100% on the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church perpetrated these atrocities on a worldwide scale over the span of multiple generations. That kind of organized crime is not possible without the entire hierarchy overseeing it, and for that reason the Catholic Church is unquestionably a criminal organization that should be held to the appropriate standards. It does not merit serious consideration as a faith group, ministry, or doer of good in any way.

I would really be surprised if you find people on this forum who would disagree with you on the issue of corruption being a problem.

I do think that calling it a criminal organization is problematic in context of its purpose. I'm sure you wouldn't think that the "actual" purpose of the Catholic Church is not as a cover shop for child molesters. If that was the case, I think you'd have a point.

But, what it is ends up being is some generic attempt by organization to save face. Of course its problematic, especially in context of religious morality. But, I'm not sure that it would make the organization inherently "criminal" in a sense of what its purpose is.

Is US government a criminal organization because they covered up their crimes in the past?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Nevertheless, it has been conclusively proven that the Roman Catholic Church is a criminal organization so I don't understand what makes you think any of their leadership can be trusted.

Well, for one, I don't believe in guilt by association.

Do I find the scandal as abhorrent as you do? Of course I do. And I completely support bringing perpetrators and those who aided them to justice, and seeing steps made to radically change how things are addressed by exposing and disciplining such people both at the ecclesiastical and secular level.

But the Catholic Church isn't identical to its hierarchy, if we removed every corrupt bishop and priest and pope there would still be a Catholic Church, comprised of over two billion human beings, both clergy and laity.

The Catholic Church can correct itself here. Just as it has sought to correct itself of other major moral failings of the past, including centuries of anti-semitism--which is still a work in progress, but at least steps have been made at addressing those serious problems.

I don't believe the Catholic Church is itself a "criminal organization", I believe it is an organization which has harbored and protected criminals and that needs to change drastically and immediately. A distinction that absolutely must be made for the sake of any kind of rational discourse.

If I thought an organization with a history of doing really bad things always deserved to be annhilated, then I would have to say the same thing about a whole lot more than just the Catholic Church. The lost history of absolutely evil, cruel, barbaric, and criminal acts perpetrated by my own country over its ~250 year history is just one example of that. Do I think America should be abolished, or do I think America should do better? I think America should do better. I believe it is entirely possible for America to be better than it has, and that the core of America has something worth keeping around as a civil insitution. I believe the same is accurate to say of the Catholic Church. I think the Catholic Church can do better, I believe in reform (if I didn't, I wouldn't be a Lutheran).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Well, for one, I don't believe in guilt by association.

Do I find the scandal as abhorrent as you do? Of course I do. And I completely support bringing perpetrators and those who aided them to justice, and seeing steps made to radically change how things are addressed by exposing and disciplining such people both at the ecclesiastical and secular level.

But the Catholic Church isn't identical to its hierarchy, if we removed every corrupt bishop and priest and pope there would still be a Catholic Church, comprised of over two billion human beings, both clergy and laity.

The Catholic Church can correct itself here. Just as it has sought to correct itself of other major moral failings of the past, including centuries of anti-semitism--which is still a work in progress, but at least steps have been made at addressing those serious problems.

I don't believe the Catholic Church is itself a "criminal organization", I believe it is an organization which has harbored and protected criminals and that needs to change drastically and immediately. A distinction that absolutely must be made for the sake of any kind of rational discourse.

If I thought an organization with a history of doing really bad things always deserved to be annhilated, then I would have to say the same thing about a whole lot more than just the Catholic Church. The lost history of absolutely evil, cruel, barbaric, and criminal acts perpetrated by my own country over its ~250 year history is just one example of that. Do I think America should be abolished, or do I think America should do better? I think America should do better. I believe it is entirely possible for America to be better than it has, and that the core of America has something worth keeping around as a civil insitution. I believe the same is accurate to say of the Catholic Church. I think the Catholic Church can do better, I believe in reform (if I didn't, I wouldn't be a Lutheran).

-CryptoLutheran

If there was an atheist organization that was discovered to have been raping children for decades, and was also covering it up, do you honestly think the organization would not be annihilated?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I would really be surprised if you find people on this forum who would disagree with you on the issue of corruption being a problem.

I do think that calling it a criminal organization is problematic in context of its purpose. I'm sure you wouldn't think that the "actual" purpose of the Catholic Church is not as a cover shop for child molesters. If that was the case, I think you'd have a point.

Is the purpose of a pencil-manufacturing company to make pencils, or is the purpose to make money?

The Catholic Church's purpose is to make money, like every for-profit company on earth. And the church was successful at it, which is why they were able to spend billions upon billions of dollars for lawyers and court fees.

Why they had such a huge stockpile of cash sitting around when they're supposed to be "helping" the poor is puzzling...

So yeah, some organizations make their money by, say, selling illegal drugs. And that's a criminal organization. But their actual purpose is not to sell drugs, but to make money; they commit crimes in the process of reaching their goal. The Catholic Church's image is... er, was important to them. Without their reputation, they can't get people to give them a large portion of their money for absolutely nothing in return. So the Catholic Church systematically committed crimes which they thought would help them maintain the cash flow.

But, what it is ends up being is some generic attempt by organization to save face. Of course its problematic, especially in context of religious morality. But, I'm not sure that it would make the organization inherently "criminal" in a sense of what its purpose is.

Is US government a criminal organization because they covered up their crimes in the past?

Yes, the US government is a criminal organization. I was unaware that this was even a point in dispute.

 

[devolved]

If there was an atheist organization that was discovered to have been raping children for decades, and was also covering it up, do you honestly think the organization would not be annihilated?

Well, I lived in a country that adopted atheism as a part of its ideology and which done some awful things, but I wouldn't conflate the two just because these coincided. There are terrible organization that can adopt either ideology. I'm not sure if Soviet Union would be a better country at its inception if it used Christianity as justification for cutting out dissidents.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Well, I lived in a country that adopted atheism as a part of its ideology and which done some awful things, but I wouldn't conflate the two just because these coincided. There are terrible organization that can adopt either ideology. I'm not sure if Soviet Union would be a better country at its inception if it used Christianity as justification for cutting out dissidents.

I'm not conflating the Catholicism with the scandals. I'm not saying that Catholicism should be forcibly banned. I'm saying the organization should be forcibly dissolved and its assets should be confiscated. But afterward, if Catholics still want to be Catholic, that's their prerogative.

 

[devolved]

The Catholic Church's purpose is to make money, like every for-profit company on earth. And the church was successful at it, which is why they were able to spend billions upon billions of dollars for lawyers and court fees.

I think money is not the end, but a means to an end in any case of "making money". The government and banks make money. We are using it as IOUs.

Why they had such a huge stockpile of cash sitting around when they're supposed to be "helping" the poor is puzzling...

I'd say it's a good point, but I doubt that the purpose of the organization is helping poor. The purpose is spreading Catholic dogma in a manner that maintains hierarchy of control over that dogma.

So yeah, some organizations make their money by, say, selling illegal drugs. And that's a criminal organization. But their actual purpose is not to sell drugs, but to make money; they commit crimes in the process of reaching their goal. The Catholic Church's image is... er, was important to them. Without their reputation, they can't get people to give them a large portion of their money for absolutely nothing in return. So the Catholic Church systematically committed crimes which they thought would help them maintain the cash flow.

I wouldn't say that people get nothing in return. In most cases of organized Church hierarchy it's a "crowdsourcing" project. It wouldn't be able to exist if there was nothing to show for the money that people donate.

Yes, the US government is a criminal organization. I was unaware that this was even a point in dispute.

Oh, you are beginning to sound like a Christian fundamentalist . If such is the case, then corporations are criminal, and so are educational institutions, so are hospitals, etc, etc.

Although, I wouldn't be surprised if you agree with the above.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I think money is not the end, but a means to an end in any case of "making money". The government and banks make money. We are using it as IOUs.



I'd say it's a good point, but I doubt that the purpose of the organization is helping poor. The purpose is spreading Catholic dogma in a manner that maintains hierarchy of control over that dogma.

Or it could be said that the spreading of Catholic dogma is the means by which they fulfill their purpose, which is to make money.

I wouldn't say that people get nothing in return. In most cases of organized Church hierarchy it's a "crowdsourcing" project. It wouldn't be able to exist if there was nothing to show for the money that people donate.

Well, no, there is nothing to show. The Catholic Church is selling real estate on Jupiter.

Oh, you are beginning to sound like a Christian fundamentalist . If such is the case, then corporations are criminal, and so are educational institutions, so are hospitals, etc, etc.

Although, I wouldn't be surprised if you agree with the above.

I'm not sure how hospitals and universities are criminal institutions. For example, when Penn State found out that their beloved football coach of 3-4 decades protected a child molester, they fired him and tore down his statue. It wasn't a stench that made its way to the top of the school. It was a head coach protecting one of his assistants.

But as far as the Catholic Church goes, all the cardinals and popes have been made aware of the child rape and have played their part in covering it up. So their act has to go. I know that some of the lower-level priests might not have been aware of what was going on, but that doesn't mean we let the whole organization off the hook. If, say, the Walmart company was involved in human trafficking so deeply that everyone who was above the rank of regional manager was directly involved, do we spare Walmart from total dissolution because the door greeters were innocent?

 

[devolved]

Or it could be said that the spreading of Catholic dogma is the means by which they fulfill their purpose, which is to make money.

Lol

Well, no, there is nothing to show. The Catholic Church is selling real estate on Jupiter.

You realize that Catholic charitable expenditure (beyond church expenses) is nearly 20% of all charitable expenditure in the US. So I would not chalk it up to nothing.

 

[devolved]

I'm not sure how hospitals and universities are criminal institutions. For example, when Penn State found out that their beloved football coach of 3-4 decades protected a child molester, they fired him and tore down his statue. It wasn't a stench that made its way to the top of the school. It was a head coach protecting one of his assistants.

Well both are hospitals and schools tend to be top-heavy beuracracies that extract the maximum possible profit from American public.

But in their scope of service, I would not chalk it up to total corruption and criminality, just like I would not government or religion... Especially in the US.