What am I?

[StThomasChristian]

Hey all,

I've decided to set my doubts aside and accept Christ. (My handle is because I identify a lot with St. Thomas the Apostle, since I am a big doubter. I can only wish to see what he saw, though.)

The trouble is, what now? It seems to me that all flavors of Christianity have very serious flaws in their doctrine:

1) Orthodox/Catholic: A) I am highly uncomfortable with the whole Mary, saints, and icons thing. I know that they don't worship any of those, rather using them as a medium through which to approach God, but actual pagans would say the same things about their idols. The Mary thing especially, even though they claim they only offer hyperdulia to Mary, while God gets latreia, it seems to me to be semantic games to justify an existing Mary cult, which is merely a 'baptized' continuation of the age old 'Mother Goddess' tradition. Not to mention the flurry of novenas and chaplets to various saints, which seems to be far exceeding the 'it's just like asking your friends/neighbors to pray for you' analogy that is often given to justify it.

B) Unbiblical dogmas: This one is especially about Catholicism. Neither the Immaculate Conception nor the Assumption of Mary have much backing in anything except apocrypha and stories written centuries after the New Testament, and yet every Catholic must believe in those, since those are the two undisputed instances of the pope using his infallibility. Frankly this infallibility thing is very disturbing. Also, the church has contradicted itself. The council of Florence in Cantate Domino says that everyone outside the Catholic Church is definitely going to hell forever: "“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church” (“Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra)."

as does the bull Unam Sanctam in which Pope Boniface VIII says:
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

while Lumen Gentium from Vatican II says:
"But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans… Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life."


2) Protestant: I realize that 'Protestant' is a very broad term, yet the basic ideas (i.e. the five solae) seem to be the product of Luther selectively cherry picking the Scriptures, especially sola gratia, which Luther attempted to justify by taking James out of the Bible and calling it an "epistle of straw". While Luther didn't get with it, nor with removing Revelation, he did get rid of the apocrypha, presumably because II Maccabees mentions prayer for the dead.

Also the issue of the humongous amount of denominations. Jesus wanted us to be one church and said that the Spirit would lead us into all truth, but Protestants (unlike Catholics or Orthodox) don't seem to be even trying. Whenever someone disagrees with you, you can just start your own church. How can you possibly do that when God is not the author of confusion?

Not to mention the fact that the choice is either between lukewarm, dying 'mainline' churches, and fundamentalists who think evolution is a conspiracy and the Exodus literally happened.

3) Restorationist groups (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.): These are just laughable. Mormonism is obviously a fraud made up by Joseph Smith. He changed his doctrine from Trinitarian to saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three different entities. There is absolutely no evidence of America being settled by Israelites in the 6th century BC, and that's just the beginning of the absurdities!

Likewise JW are renowned for their failed prophecy of Jesus' return in 1914 and again in the 70s, as well as their distortion of Scripture by changing John 1:1 to "the word was a god", which is essentially Arianism.


So what do I do? Do I just do my best to follow Jesus on my own? Yet we are supposed to be a community! Otherwise why are Paul's letters even in the Bible? He sure seemed to think we need to be a community, an ekklesia, forming the Body of Christ.

Essentially, this is your chance to defend your denomination and tell me why I should join, haha.

Just to mention that in Jerusalem the choice is basically:
1) Catholic Hebrew-speaking parish
2) Traditionalist Anglican
3) Southern Baptist
4) Reformed Baptist
5) Orthodox (but it seems that the churches here are more for tourists than actual parishes, I don't know how much they would be willing to cathechize and baptize me, and me being not Russian, Greek, or Arab would be a problem considering the close ties between Orthodoxy here and ethnicity).
6) Evangelical Lutheran

 

[Aleksandros]

I would suggest continuing forwards about this topic with much prayer, which is the most important thing.

Try reading up on things like Pietism, which emphasise personal holiness. There are many different groups and denominations, and all of them are mixed with error. I would also suggest reading the earliest Church Fathers - Clement, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and so on, who lived right after the Apostles and were even their disciples. It's a safe route.

While you're trying to figure all this out, absolutely get into the Spiritual disciplines (Meditation on the Bible, prayer, and bible study) which will make you grow in personal holiness, and also draw closer to God.

Avoid too much reading unless you are able to bear 10,000 different viewpoints on a 1,000 different topics.

You seem the type to be able to handle it, but still. Another thing is, the Church was indeed a community in the times of Paul, but now.. hahaha

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

I am highly uncomfortable with the whole Mary, saints, and icons thing.

And you are not the only one apparently. As Catholicism represents the foolness of truth in Christianity, I am highly perturbed by your stance on this.

 

[Paidiske]

There's no perfect church. The thing is to find a church where you can:

- grow
- serve
- not have major issues of conscience.

Based on what you've said above, I'd be inclined to suggest you try the Anglican parish - it should avoid the worst excesses you've outlined - and see how you find it for a few weeks. Do they welcome you? Can you talk to the clergy about being baptised? Do they seem as if they will take teaching you and mentoring you in the use of your gifts in the church seriously? Are you able to participate in the liturgy and find it edifying? If so, stick around and see how it goes.

 

[amariselle]

I will not attempt to defend or advocate for any "denomination". I truly believe that all those who have faith in Christ alone for salvation are saved, born again, have passed from death to life and are sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption.

Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life, the only way to the Father. (John 14:6)

Our salvation is through Him alone and not through any added works or religious rituals, and not by belonging to any one denomination. True unity is in Christ.

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." - John 3:14-18

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." - John 3:36

"Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed."

"Then said they unto him, 'What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?'"

Jesus answered and said unto them, 'This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.'" - John 6:27-29

"For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." - John 6:38-40

There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1)

The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in His Son. (Romans 6:23)

Christ is the end of the Law for all who believe. (Romans 10:4)

We are saved by grace, through faith, not of works. (Ephesians 2:8)

God is not willing that any should perish, but that all would come to repentance. - 2 Peter 3:9

Repentance from "dead works" and faith toward God. - (Hebrews 6:1)

By the works of the Law no flesh will be justified, but only by faith in Christ. (Galatians 2:16)

Also read Romans 4, Romans 5, Galatians 5, Hebrews 4, Hebrews 11

Our salvation is entirely by faith in Christ and what He has done. (The Gospel) 1 Corinthians 15:1-4

 

[HereIStand]

Given the choices, I'd go with Traditionalist Anglican or Reformed Baptist. God Bless.

 

[SkyWriting]

I've decided to set my doubts aside and accept Christ.

Best get busy in prayer.

Answered Prayer - Steps 1, 2, 3

 

[Adstar]

Hey all,

I've decided to set my doubts aside and accept Christ. (My handle is because I identify a lot with St. Thomas the Apostle, since I am a big doubter. I can only wish to see what he saw, though.)

The trouble is, what now? It seems to me that all flavors of Christianity have very serious flaws in their doctrine:

1) Orthodox/Catholic: A) I am highly uncomfortable with the whole Mary, saints, and icons thing. I know that they don't worship any of those, rather using them as a medium through which to approach God, but actual pagans would say the same things about their idols. The Mary thing especially, even though they claim they only offer hyperdulia to Mary, while God gets latreia, it seems to me to be semantic games to justify an existing Mary cult, which is merely a 'baptized' continuation of the age old 'Mother Goddess' tradition. Not to mention the flurry of novenas and chaplets to various saints, which seems to be far exceeding the 'it's just like asking your friends/neighbors to pray for you' analogy that is often given to justify it.

B) Unbiblical dogmas: This one is especially about Catholicism. Neither the Immaculate Conception nor the Assumption of Mary have much backing in anything except apocrypha and stories written centuries after the New Testament, and yet every Catholic must believe in those, since those are the two undisputed instances of the pope using his infallibility. Frankly this infallibility thing is very disturbing. Also, the church has contradicted itself. The council of Florence in Cantate Domino says that everyone outside the Catholic Church is definitely going to hell forever: "“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church” (“Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra)."

as does the bull Unam Sanctam in which Pope Boniface VIII says:
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

while Lumen Gentium from Vatican II says:
"But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans… Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life."


2) Protestant: I realize that 'Protestant' is a very broad term, yet the basic ideas (i.e. the five solae) seem to be the product of Luther selectively cherry picking the Scriptures, especially sola gratia, which Luther attempted to justify by taking James out of the Bible and calling it an "epistle of straw". While Luther didn't get with it, nor with removing Revelation, he did get rid of the apocrypha, presumably because II Maccabees mentions prayer for the dead.

Also the issue of the humongous amount of denominations. Jesus wanted us to be one church and said that the Spirit would lead us into all truth, but Protestants (unlike Catholics or Orthodox) don't seem to be even trying. Whenever someone disagrees with you, you can just start your own church. How can you possibly do that when God is not the author of confusion?

Not to mention the fact that the choice is either between lukewarm, dying 'mainline' churches, and fundamentalists who think evolution is a conspiracy and the Exodus literally happened.

3) Restorationist groups (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.): These are just laughable. Mormonism is obviously a fraud made up by Joseph Smith. He changed his doctrine from Trinitarian to saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three different entities. There is absolutely no evidence of America being settled by Israelites in the 6th century BC, and that's just the beginning of the absurdities!

Likewise JW are renowned for their failed prophecy of Jesus' return in 1914 and again in the 70s, as well as their distortion of Scripture by changing John 1:1 to "the word was a god", which is essentially Arianism.


So what do I do? Do I just do my best to follow Jesus on my own? Yet we are supposed to be a community! Otherwise why are Paul's letters even in the Bible? He sure seemed to think we need to be a community, an ekklesia, forming the Body of Christ.

Essentially, this is your chance to defend your denomination and tell me why I should join, haha.

Just to mention that in Jerusalem the choice is basically:
1) Catholic Hebrew-speaking parish
2) Traditionalist Anglican
3) Southern Baptist
4) Reformed Baptist
5) Orthodox (but it seems that the churches here are more for tourists than actual parishes, I don't know how much they would be willing to cathechize and baptize me, and me being not Russian, Greek, or Arab would be a problem considering the close ties between Orthodoxy here and ethnicity).
6) Evangelical Lutheran

My simple advice is to read the Bible and accept it.. We are not going to be standing in denominational groups on the day of judgement.. We will all personally stand before God and He will deal with us as individuals.. So deal with His Word as an individual and ask for His guidance and protection from deception.. Take personal responsibility for your walk with God...

 

[amariselle]

Also, know that when you pray you can and should pray directly to God. You do not need to go through Mary or the "Saints." There is absolutely no support for this practice in Scripture whatsoever.

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus..." - 1 Timothy 2:5

"Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." - Hebrews 4:14-16

"Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." - Hebrews 7:25

"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." - 1 John 2:1-2

"He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.

For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 8:32-39

 

[Petros2015]

5) Orthodox (but it seems that the churches here are more for tourists than actual parishes, I don't know how much they would be willing to cathechize and baptize me, and me being not Russian, Greek, or Arab would be a problem considering the close ties between Orthodoxy here and ethnicity).

Someone was attempting to convince me of RCC many of the dogmatic issues you stated troubled and led me to further investigate and discover Orthodoxy which I accepted. I do have some trouble fitting in both spiritually and socially as I am not from any of the traditional ethnic backgrounds, but I was accepted and became a full member. I come from a Charasmatic turned Sinner for 20 years turned Spiritual 12 Step Recovery background and this was where God led me after about 3 years of sobriety. I'm a prodigal son story. I do recommend prayer and seeking, and I don't think everyone is led to the same place, but I do think that God will lead everyone somewhere. For me, the discipline and meditative aspects that Orthodoxy encourages and the sacraments fit perfectly with 12 Step Recovery, and I felt like God gave me some pieces of guidance when I was seeking: "Rule #1: a disciple needs discipline" and "Rule #2: you don't get to make the rules". When I got there I found rich traditions of symbolism and writings that I could draw from "I love old books", many in common with RCC which appealed to me. I love the old prayers of the saints. I love prayer time by candlelight. I am a little uncomfortable with Marian aspects sometimes, though I don't think they are as pronounced as in RCC and have evolved less. The idea that saints persist and are our friends was new and makes sense to me. The 'Church' is outside of time, spiritually. We are, as it were "surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses" Hebrews 12:1 and He is the God of the Living, after all. The liturgy, the communion prayer, is sacrosanct. It is in some ways the biggest prayer that has ever been prayed, when you think about what it is asking. The sacraments keep me honest and reflective and progressing in my walk when I participate in them (as they say in 12 Step Recovery, "it works if you work it"). The idea of "saved and done" that is common with Protestant or Charismatic movements never worked for me, I never felt "born again" so much as "still-born". But I know others who have experienced dramatic conversion experiences within Protestant or Charasmatic faiths that I also believe were genuine. I would describe Orthodoxy rather as a lifetime "birthing process" that is participated in, and the Church as providing the structure and framework for that process. It is also a "dying process" at the same time, putting aside the passions and sins, fasting. This is consistent to me with the teachings of the Kingdom of God being as something planted, which grows, and is consistent with my own personal experience. I don't believe in Sola Scriptura as Protestant faiths do, but I do participate in bible studies with them as they dive deeply into the scriptures, though I keep them in light of Orthodox teaching. The Orthodox Way by Kallisto Wares is an excellent description of the faith that I love and one of the most spiritual books I have ever read. I wish you many blessings along the Way.

 

[Mountainmike]

I appreciate your dilemma.
I have done the transition from protestant to evangelical, finally home in the catholic church. So I understand your ambivalence, it is a journey many of us make.

My advice is perhaps you should consider a few bigger issues that transcend the detail of what is truth and what is taught, and consider by what authority you can know that.

The faith in origin was handed down by apstolic succession, only later was the canon that became the new testament decided by council , so you have to accept those fathers as acting infallibly (under certain conditions) , or you simply dont have a new testament or creed. They chose from many competing documents rejecting some precisely because they contradicted tradition , the faith handed down.

Now if you look for justification for their power to decide truth , look at what "bind and loose" meant to the jewish audience , the ability to pronounce judgement on doctrinal matters. And you see in the bible the same given to Peter alone, the office of keys, as elsewhere said to the apostles jointly. So that is the foundation of councils, authority and infallibility.

Next look at both what the early church taught (take ignatius on the real presence in the eucharist, power of bishops and so on) you see a liturgical, sacramental church with only bishops empowered to perform a valid eucharist, which he stated was "the flesh of christ". Ignatius and polycarp were disciples of John the apostle. It is an inconceivable hypothesis that the very first succession apostasized. So regard tradition not as adding doctrine to scripture , but as giving you the meaning to scripture.

The reformationist churches have a plethora of mutually exclusive beliefs on every aspect like eucharist, precisely because they fail to ground the interpretation handed by tradition. The two are inseparable.
That is why Paul says "hold true to tradition we taught you"

Next consider what the fathers who chose your canon and creed believed. Some of their writings are vociferous in supporting intercession of Mary.

Indeed - the justification for what they believed : take mary as intercessor - goes back a long way. Jesus was heralded as david King , so she is heralded mother of a davidic king, which we see in scripture was given the title queen in those days. And we see from the OT, that the queen was given a throne, the king bowed to her, and told her he would do whatever she asked. We see intercession at Cana, when Jesus honoured her request but rebuked her implying it was too early "his time had not yet come. You cannot discount Mary as just a human mother. She was Kaire Kecharetomene. Hail perfected in grace, the lord was with her.
Titles and grace endowed given to no other human. Ark of the new covenant. That is clearly consistent with mary as intercessor. So how now do you decide on whether that was the meaning intended?

You would have serious problems in believing that the council fathers were right in deciding the new testament and creed, but wrong in what they thought it meant! So if you trust the new testament so you trusth the council fathers, then trust what they said scripture meant, so trust intercession of mary
There is justification if you look for it.

So study tradition (the early sacramental church and what they believed), authority vested in councils, the power to bind and loose. And at the end you have to decide. Would christ really let his church go off the rails for so long? He says not. He says the "gates of hell will not prevail against it" So if you are left with a handful of docrines you find it hard to understand, accept the truth of the 99 percent. There are books can help you with the 1 percent. Take "behold your mother" staples, that shows that immaculate conception is indeed implicit.

Now look at the fruits of Sola scriptura, all get to choose their own meaning which is why, there are now thousands of permutations of mutually exclusive truth. Even luther said "there are now as many doctrines as heads". The fruits of sola scriptura has been endless doctrinal division. And our lord says "a house divided cannot stand"

History shows that tradition, scripture and authority are needed for correct doctrine. And study of early fathers leads to correct understanding. Indeed scripture demonstrates tradition and authority.
And also that scripture is not enough. Logically if the highest truth was "all necessary truth in scripture". It would have to include it to stop it being a self refuting proposition, which therefore it is provably false.. Instead it says "the pillar of truth is the church"

I could write volumes more.
But I rest my case your honour.

EVERY response you will get from other denominations will be scripture references they say mean XYZ - but other than their own interpretation of those scriptures how they do know? And why they differ on what the same verses mean from many other protestants let alone us. The answer is lack of authority and tradtion, and the falasy of sola scriptura , and that the "priesthood of all believers can interpret it. The myriad of interpretations and denominations starting at the reformation prove they cant. Till then there was just us - and orthodox whose disagreements with us, are minor in comparison. You will probably not understand. The arcane issue of filioque, that divided us, let alone be able to explain it! Post reformation there are many thousands of versions of doctrine, totally incompatible. Nor can you or should you accept a denomination on preference. Either OSAS is right or wrong. No middle ground. Early fathers say wrong.

To see the testimony about the faith journey of many pastors and theologians who overcame their objections to catholicism see either Journey home series EWTN or reason to believe books madrid. ALl are individual testimonies, but all centre on the question of authority , and early church fathers, and early church history, which is why they came back to Rome.

Hey all,

I've decided to set my doubts aside and accept Christ. (My handle is because I identify a lot with St. Thomas the Apostle, since I am a big doubter. I can only wish to see what he saw, though.)

The trouble is, what now? It seems to me that all flavors of Christianity have very serious flaws in their doctrine:

1) Orthodox/Catholic: A) I am highly uncomfortable with the whole Mary, saints, and icons thing. I know that they don't worship any of those, rather using them as a medium through which to approach God, but actual pagans would say the same things about their idols. The Mary thing especially, even though they claim they only offer hyperdulia to Mary, while God gets latreia, it seems to me to be semantic games to justify an existing Mary cult, which is merely a 'baptized' continuation of the age old 'Mother Goddess' tradition. Not to mention the flurry of novenas and chaplets to various saints, which seems to be far exceeding the 'it's just like asking your friends/neighbors to pray for you' analogy that is often given to justify it.

B) Unbiblical dogmas: This one is especially about Catholicism. Neither the Immaculate Conception nor the Assumption of Mary have much backing in anything except apocrypha and stories written centuries after the New Testament, and yet every Catholic must believe in those, since those are the two undisputed instances of the pope using his infallibility. Frankly this infallibility thing is very disturbing. Also, the church has contradicted itself. The council of Florence in Cantate Domino says that everyone outside the Catholic Church is definitely going to hell forever: "“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church” (“Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra)."

as does the bull Unam Sanctam in which Pope Boniface VIII says:
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

while Lumen Gentium from Vatican II says:
"But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans… Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life."


2) Protestant: I realize that 'Protestant' is a very broad term, yet the basic ideas (i.e. the five solae) seem to be the product of Luther selectively cherry picking the Scriptures, especially sola gratia, which Luther attempted to justify by taking James out of the Bible and calling it an "epistle of straw". While Luther didn't get with it, nor with removing Revelation, he did get rid of the apocrypha, presumably because II Maccabees mentions prayer for the dead.

Also the issue of the humongous amount of denominations. Jesus wanted us to be one church and said that the Spirit would lead us into all truth, but Protestants (unlike Catholics or Orthodox) don't seem to be even trying. Whenever someone disagrees with you, you can just start your own church. How can you possibly do that when God is not the author of confusion?

Not to mention the fact that the choice is either between lukewarm, dying 'mainline' churches, and fundamentalists who think evolution is a conspiracy and the Exodus literally happened.

3) Restorationist groups (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.): These are just laughable. Mormonism is obviously a fraud made up by Joseph Smith. He changed his doctrine from Trinitarian to saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three different entities. There is absolutely no evidence of America being settled by Israelites in the 6th century BC, and that's just the beginning of the absurdities!

Likewise JW are renowned for their failed prophecy of Jesus' return in 1914 and again in the 70s, as well as their distortion of Scripture by changing John 1:1 to "the word was a god", which is essentially Arianism.


So what do I do? Do I just do my best to follow Jesus on my own? Yet we are supposed to be a community! Otherwise why are Paul's letters even in the Bible? He sure seemed to think we need to be a community, an ekklesia, forming the Body of Christ.

Essentially, this is your chance to defend your denomination and tell me why I should join, haha.

Just to mention that in Jerusalem the choice is basically:
1) Catholic Hebrew-speaking parish
2) Traditionalist Anglican
3) Southern Baptist
4) Reformed Baptist
5) Orthodox (but it seems that the churches here are more for tourists than actual parishes, I don't know how much they would be willing to cathechize and baptize me, and me being not Russian, Greek, or Arab would be a problem considering the close ties between Orthodoxy here and ethnicity).
6) Evangelical Lutheran

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

No wonder people make the simple choice, Jesus is the truth and that's all that matters. Add love God and love your neighbour and the rest is just a headache not worth stressing over. In the end, its how we live our lives anyway, nor what doctrines we believe in. Still those with a penchant for intellectualism, may actually enjoy exploring all the differences.

 

[amariselle]

"Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.

For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." - 2 Corinthians 11:2-4

"Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,

Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." - Galatians 1:3-12

This is the Gospel (the only one) to which Paul is referring:

"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures..." - 1 Corinthians 15:1-4

 

[Goatee]

I appreciate your dilemma.
I have done the transition from protestant to evangelical, finally home in the catholic church. So I understand your ambivalence, it is a journey many of us make.

My advice is perhaps you should consider a few bigger issues that transcend the detail of what is truth and what is taught, and consider by what authority you can know that.

The faith in origin was handed down by apstolic succession, only later was the canon that became the new testament decided by council , so you have to accept those fathers as acting infallibly (under certain conditions) , or you simply dont have a new testament or creed. They chose from many competing documents rejecting some precisely because they contradicted tradition , the faith handed down.

Now if you look for justification for their power to decide truth , look at what "bind and loose" meant to the jewish audience , the ability to pronounce judgement on doctrinal matters. And you see in the bible the same given to Peter alone, the office of keys, as elsewhere said to the apostles jointly. So that is the foundation of councils, authority and infallibility.

Next look at both what the early church taught (take ignatius on the real presence in the eucharist, power of bishops and so on) you see a liturgical, sacramental church with only bishops empowered to perform a valid eucharist, which he stated was "the flesh of christ". Ignatius and polycarp were disciples of John the apostle. It is an inconceivable hypothesis that the very first succession apostasized. So regard tradition not as adding doctrine to scripture , but as giving you the meaning to scripture.

The reformationist churches have a plethora of mutually exclusive beliefs on every aspect like eucharist, precisely because they fail to ground the interpretation handed by tradition. The two are inseparable.
That is why Paul says "hold true to tradition we taught you"

Next consider what the fathers who chose your canon and creed believed. Some of their writings are vociferous in supporting intercession of Mary.

Indeed - the justification for what they believed : take mary as intercessor - goes back a long way. Jesus was heralded as david King , so she is heralded mother of a davidic king, which we see in scripture was given the title queen in those days. And we see from the OT, that the queen was given a throne, the king bowed to her, and told her he would do whatever she asked. We see intercession at Cana, when Jesus honoured her request but rebuked her implying it was too early "his time had not yet come. You cannot discount Mary as just a human mother. She was Kaire Kecharetomene. Hail perfected in grace, the lord was with her.
Titles and grace endowed given to no other human. Ark of the new covenant. That is clearly consistent with mary as intercessor. So how now do you decide on whether that was the meaning intended?

You would have serious problems in believing that the council fathers were right in deciding the new testament and creed, but wrong in what they thought it meant! So if you trust the new testament so you trusth the council fathers, then trust what they said scripture meant, so trust intercession of mary
There is justification if you look for it.

So study tradition (the early sacramental church and what they believed), authority vested in councils, the power to bind and loose. And at the end you have to decide. Would christ really let his church go off the rails for so long? He says not. He says the "gates of hell will not prevail against it" So if you are left with a handful of docrines you find it hard to understand, accept the truth of the 99 percent. There are books can help you with the 1 percent. Take "behold your mother" staples, that shows that immaculate conception is indeed implicit.

Now look at the fruits of Sola scriptura, all get to choose their own meaning which is why, there are now thousands of permutations of mutually exclusive truth. Even luther said "there are now as many doctrines as heads". The fruits of sola scriptura has been endless doctrinal division. And our lord says "a house divided cannot stand"

History shows that tradition, scripture and authority are needed for correct doctrine. And study of early fathers leads to correct understanding. Indeed scripture demonstrates tradition and authority.
And also that scripture is not enough. Logically if the highest truth was "all necessary truth in scripture". It would have to include it to stop it being a self refuting proposition. Instead it says "the pillar of truth is the church"

I could write volumes more.
But I rest my case your honour.

To see the testimony about the faith journey of many pastors and theologians who overcame their objections to catholicism see either Journey home series EWTN or reason to believe books madrid. ALl are individual testimonies, but all centre on the question of authority , and early church fathers, and early church history, which is why they came back to Rome.

Great post. Agree

 

[Acts2:38]

Hey all,

I've decided to set my doubts aside and accept Christ. (My handle is because I identify a lot with St. Thomas the Apostle, since I am a big doubter. I can only wish to see what he saw, though.)

The trouble is, what now? It seems to me that all flavors of Christianity have very serious flaws in their doctrine:

1) Orthodox/Catholic: A) I am highly uncomfortable with the whole Mary, saints, and icons thing. I know that they don't worship any of those, rather using them as a medium through which to approach God, but actual pagans would say the same things about their idols. The Mary thing especially, even though they claim they only offer hyperdulia to Mary, while God gets latreia, it seems to me to be semantic games to justify an existing Mary cult, which is merely a 'baptized' continuation of the age old 'Mother Goddess' tradition. Not to mention the flurry of novenas and chaplets to various saints, which seems to be far exceeding the 'it's just like asking your friends/neighbors to pray for you' analogy that is often given to justify it.

B) Unbiblical dogmas: This one is especially about Catholicism. Neither the Immaculate Conception nor the Assumption of Mary have much backing in anything except apocrypha and stories written centuries after the New Testament, and yet every Catholic must believe in those, since those are the two undisputed instances of the pope using his infallibility. Frankly this infallibility thing is very disturbing. Also, the church has contradicted itself. The council of Florence in Cantate Domino says that everyone outside the Catholic Church is definitely going to hell forever: "“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church” (“Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra)."

as does the bull Unam Sanctam in which Pope Boniface VIII says:
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

while Lumen Gentium from Vatican II says:
"But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans… Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life."


2) Protestant: I realize that 'Protestant' is a very broad term, yet the basic ideas (i.e. the five solae) seem to be the product of Luther selectively cherry picking the Scriptures, especially sola gratia, which Luther attempted to justify by taking James out of the Bible and calling it an "epistle of straw". While Luther didn't get with it, nor with removing Revelation, he did get rid of the apocrypha, presumably because II Maccabees mentions prayer for the dead.

Also the issue of the humongous amount of denominations. Jesus wanted us to be one church and said that the Spirit would lead us into all truth, but Protestants (unlike Catholics or Orthodox) don't seem to be even trying. Whenever someone disagrees with you, you can just start your own church. How can you possibly do that when God is not the author of confusion?

Not to mention the fact that the choice is either between lukewarm, dying 'mainline' churches, and fundamentalists who think evolution is a conspiracy and the Exodus literally happened.

3) Restorationist groups (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.): These are just laughable. Mormonism is obviously a fraud made up by Joseph Smith. He changed his doctrine from Trinitarian to saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three different entities. There is absolutely no evidence of America being settled by Israelites in the 6th century BC, and that's just the beginning of the absurdities!

Likewise JW are renowned for their failed prophecy of Jesus' return in 1914 and again in the 70s, as well as their distortion of Scripture by changing John 1:1 to "the word was a god", which is essentially Arianism.


So what do I do? Do I just do my best to follow Jesus on my own? Yet we are supposed to be a community! Otherwise why are Paul's letters even in the Bible? He sure seemed to think we need to be a community, an ekklesia, forming the Body of Christ.

Essentially, this is your chance to defend your denomination and tell me why I should join, haha.

Just to mention that in Jerusalem the choice is basically:
1) Catholic Hebrew-speaking parish
2) Traditionalist Anglican
3) Southern Baptist
4) Reformed Baptist
5) Orthodox (but it seems that the churches here are more for tourists than actual parishes, I don't know how much they would be willing to cathechize and baptize me, and me being not Russian, Greek, or Arab would be a problem considering the close ties between Orthodoxy here and ethnicity).
6) Evangelical Lutheran

You should go to Christ's church. Non of the ones you mentioned are found in scripture and as you said, follow gospel doctrine.

On a side note, you have your idea of "restoration" totally wrong. Mormons and JW's are NOT considered christians at all and cannot even be lumped in with these other groups. They try to ease into the roll but are more considered cult than anything else. Churches of Christ are "restoration" churches. Restoration meaning to "restore" back to the original state. Mormon and JW's are definitely NOT restoring back to the original state since they didn't exist til the 1800's an so on.

Reformation is "reforming" from already broken traditions of the "parent" church. Pretty much ALL of the other so called christian churches broke off of Catholicism, "reforming" (see the history of the 1500's and on) from an already man made broken system.

Orthodoxy is also a split off of Catholicism although they will try to dismiss it and claim originality. The fact is, they too were not around in the first century or even the second, or the third.

That leaves you with just Christ's church or Catholics. From a historical point, it can't be Catholic either since they and their traditions are not found til 3rd century, and were not set up really until the 600's AD.

Now you have narrowed it down to one, Christ's church, of which He is the head (not the pope).

See Matthew 16:18-19; Acts 2:38,41,47; Romans 12; 1 Corinthians 12; Colossians 1:13; Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:1-5; Romans 16:16; Ephesians 4:4-6.

In all the scripture you will not see not one church set up by Luther or Smyth or Wesly, so on and so forth. You will not see authorized names like Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, so on and so forth.

The church was set up by Christ, upon Peter's confession, in Christ's name. Christ is the founder of the church and to Him, is given the authority. He is the builder so it is the church of Christ, Christ's church, that is authorized in scripture.

You will not find many churches of Christ with a fallen lampstand, following traditions of men instead of the written word. They follow the bible and will answer from the bible.

 

[paul1149]

I've decided to set my doubts aside and accept Christ. (My handle is because I identify a lot with St. Thomas the Apostle, since I am a big doubter. I can only wish to see what he saw, though.)

The trouble is, what now? It seems to me that all flavors of Christianity have very serious flaws in their doctrine:

I know of no church or denomination that gets it all right. I trust none of them completely, nor do I think we should. Christianity immediately falls apart when Christ is taken out of the equation or reduced in importance. He is central and must remain so, or we become like a jet without fuel.

Oh, that you would bear with me in a little folly—and indeed you do bear with me. 2 For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. 3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it! -2Cor 11​

I would say continue in Christ. Somewhere Paul says, "as you have received Christ, so walk in Him". In 1Tim 1 he says the goal of our charge is " love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith." Look for the fellowship where you can learn, grow, serve, and discover your gifts and calling. Go with what bears witness in your heart, because a transformed heart is what it's all about. It's never going to be perfect, but as long as it's not seriously wrong and people are teachable, that's not a deal-breaker.

In short, we are first Christians. Anything else comes after.

BTW, though Thomas is commonly known for his doubting, he's the one who said, "let us go with Him also, that me might die with Him", when Jesus said He was returning to hostile Judea. His personal loyalty and devotion to Jesus was unsurpassed, though his faith would fail that one time.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Hey all,
I've decided to set my doubts aside and accept Christ.

So what do I do? Do I just do my best to follow Jesus on my own? Yet we are supposed to be a community! Otherwise why are Paul's letters even in the Bible? He sure seemed to think we need to be a community, an ekklesia, forming the Body of Christ.

You don't mention which languages you speak, but if it is in Jerusalem here are the Catholic services, listed with languages. I would be able to understand only English and Latin, but I noticed German, French, Hebrew, lots of languages. Also a variety of Catholic rites, including Maronite. The same site has listings for Lutherans and other brands of Christian.

Catholic Masses in Jerusalem

You spent a good deal of time raining on Catholics, but to be fair you should check them out in person. If it were me, linguistically challenged as I am, I would visit the Pontifical Biblical Institute. Sunday and daily mass apparently at 5 PM, in English.

 

[FaithfulPilgrim]

I would recommend taking a look into the Religious Society of Friends (also known as Quakers). They have their own schisms, but there has been some mending between them as well. They are Protestants, but and believe the Bible to be authoritative and inspired, but not necessarily infallible or without error. Now, Quakers are quite diverse, so I'm only using generalizations, here.

They don't practice water baptism or the Lord's Supper as to them, the sacraments are something experienced rather than to be observed ritually. John the Baptist said he baptizes with water, but the One who is coming will baptize with the Spirit. They believe in baptism by the Holy Spirit, but not water baptism. They also believe that Communion is fellowshiping with other believers who have Jesus in them.

They were at the forefront of the abolition movement, women's suffrage, prison reform, and the temperance movement.

One of their most distinctive doctrines is the Inner Light, that every person has a part of God in them, giving them the capability to be choose right and wrong of their own free will, and they can choose to follow or turn away from this light, and it is possible for someone to be saved without ever hearing of Christianity because of this. Quakers are also pacifists (though some of them are okay with violence when it comes to self-defense as they believe that inflicting harm upon another person is attacking God (not sure if you could actually harm God though.)

As for worship, there is programmed and unprogrammed worship. The former is alot like that of evangelical churches (and evangelical Quakers are often very similar to other evangelicals in doctrine and their view of the Bible, but may include silent worship and and not practice water baptism and the Lord's Supper.) Unprogrammed worship is a distinctive of the Quaker faith, but most Quakers today practice the programmed variety. Unprogrammed, or silent meetings involve Quakers sitting quietly and they do not speak unless they are compelled by the Holy Spirit. It is also used as their primary decision making process. Once a consensus is reached, they make a decision. It is still practiced by conservative and liberal Quakers.

You may also want to take a look at the churches of Christ. They are a part of the Restoration movement, but closer to orthodoxy than most churches in the Restoration movement. Some of them are legalistic, and they hold to biblical infallibility, but they're different from Protestants as their view of salvation puts a greater emphasis on works and water baptism is integral to the salvation process.

 

[Cowwy]

There seem to be many options and academic response here. Seeing how your post is very lengthy and detail, I suspect that you are very learned yourself in the subject. I am more of an observer than an academic genius and avoid the academic route for good reason, if you ask me what the problem is in the "Church", there is a huge divide among the body of Christ that can't seem to agree with one another.

The only ones that seem to get alone are those belong to the same denomination that don't ask much questions about their teachings.

There is doctrine debate basically in every subject in the bible. Even on this forum, if someone raises a question they are open to be challenge. Everyone who studies the bible seem to have a persona that only "me" have the truth while everyone else is a liar. If you want to prove me wrong, give me verses, documentation, and scholar studies. This sort of mentality which in my opinion is insane, it is setup in a way that "I cannot be refuted, look at all the evidence I have!" People can't possibly perceive that they can be wrong in their interpretation.

The very fact that the body of Christ can't agree is because there is an inherent flaw in the Church system and in its teaching. From the way that it is going, we are slipping into the era where Jesus once walked where the Pharisees holding onto their tradition more strongly than God. In modern times, we holding onto academia and scholar wisdom for truth more strongly than God.

I have no definitive answers which "church" is the one. What I can say is, if anyone who strives for God must read the Scripture and seek God themselves. Before God, we should always humble ourselves and know that we can be dead wrong in the very end even if the whole world agrees.

 

[Amazing Horse]

Hey all,

I've decided to set my doubts aside and accept Christ. (My handle is because I identify a lot with St. Thomas the Apostle, since I am a big doubter. I can only wish to see what he saw, though.)

The trouble is, what now? It seems to me that all flavors of Christianity have very serious flaws in their doctrine:

1) Orthodox/Catholic: A) I am highly uncomfortable with the whole Mary, saints, and icons thing. I know that they don't worship any of those, rather using them as a medium through which to approach God, but actual pagans would say the same things about their idols. The Mary thing especially, even though they claim they only offer hyperdulia to Mary, while God gets latreia, it seems to me to be semantic games to justify an existing Mary cult, which is merely a 'baptized' continuation of the age old 'Mother Goddess' tradition. Not to mention the flurry of novenas and chaplets to various saints, which seems to be far exceeding the 'it's just like asking your friends/neighbors to pray for you' analogy that is often given to justify it.

B) Unbiblical dogmas: This one is especially about Catholicism. Neither the Immaculate Conception nor the Assumption of Mary have much backing in anything except apocrypha and stories written centuries after the New Testament, and yet every Catholic must believe in those, since those are the two undisputed instances of the pope using his infallibility. Frankly this infallibility thing is very disturbing. Also, the church has contradicted itself. The council of Florence in Cantate Domino says that everyone outside the Catholic Church is definitely going to hell forever: "“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church” (“Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra)."

as does the bull Unam Sanctam in which Pope Boniface VIII says:
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

while Lumen Gentium from Vatican II says:
"But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans… Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life."


2) Protestant: I realize that 'Protestant' is a very broad term, yet the basic ideas (i.e. the five solae) seem to be the product of Luther selectively cherry picking the Scriptures, especially sola gratia, which Luther attempted to justify by taking James out of the Bible and calling it an "epistle of straw". While Luther didn't get with it, nor with removing Revelation, he did get rid of the apocrypha, presumably because II Maccabees mentions prayer for the dead.

Also the issue of the humongous amount of denominations. Jesus wanted us to be one church and said that the Spirit would lead us into all truth, but Protestants (unlike Catholics or Orthodox) don't seem to be even trying. Whenever someone disagrees with you, you can just start your own church. How can you possibly do that when God is not the author of confusion?

Not to mention the fact that the choice is either between lukewarm, dying 'mainline' churches, and fundamentalists who think evolution is a conspiracy and the Exodus literally happened.

3) Restorationist groups (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.): These are just laughable. Mormonism is obviously a fraud made up by Joseph Smith. He changed his doctrine from Trinitarian to saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three different entities. There is absolutely no evidence of America being settled by Israelites in the 6th century BC, and that's just the beginning of the absurdities!

Likewise JW are renowned for their failed prophecy of Jesus' return in 1914 and again in the 70s, as well as their distortion of Scripture by changing John 1:1 to "the word was a god", which is essentially Arianism.


So what do I do? Do I just do my best to follow Jesus on my own? Yet we are supposed to be a community! Otherwise why are Paul's letters even in the Bible? He sure seemed to think we need to be a community, an ekklesia, forming the Body of Christ.

Essentially, this is your chance to defend your denomination and tell me why I should join, haha.

Just to mention that in Jerusalem the choice is basically:
1) Catholic Hebrew-speaking parish
2) Traditionalist Anglican
3) Southern Baptist
4) Reformed Baptist
5) Orthodox (but it seems that the churches here are more for tourists than actual parishes, I don't know how much they would be willing to cathechize and baptize me, and me being not Russian, Greek, or Arab would be a problem considering the close ties between Orthodoxy here and ethnicity).
6) Evangelical Lutheran

Baptist church would be fine , remember that baptism does not make you christian but believing in Christ 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 and then Ephesians 1:13-14, baptism is declaration to people in that church that you accepted Christ , it's like wedding ring .

Wish you all good