Which denomination is the right one?

[AV1611VET]

Yes. It is pseudo-history.

You were there?

 

[dzheremi]

You were there?

Sorry, that line didn't work when the YECs tried to use it at their conferences back in the 80s and 90s, and it doesn't work now regarding this.

We don't need to have personally been there to be able to tell whether or not something that is proposed fits in with the historical record, because the Church kept very good records as to an overview of Christian history. What I mean by this is that while some have since thrown suspicion upon individual accounts as kept by the likes of Eusebius (and having read his ecclesiastical history years ago, I can see why in certain respects) or other individual sources, taken in the aggregate it is not hard to follow along with the 'through line' created by comparing, say, the ecclesiastical histories of the likes of John of Ephesus (fl. 540s-580) and corresponding historians from within the Byzantine Empire's imperial (Chalcedonian) Church. While the two will obviously disagree with each other on some matters theological and political, they do record largely the same events, such that we do not have to doubt what actually went on -- perhaps only some interpretations of it.

Much later attempts at history designed to provide later Christian movements historical antecedents that they do not have (e.g., "landmark" Baptist timelines and similar ideas, in all their guises) do not operate this way, hence they are pseudo-histories. It is the difference between a position in search of a history vs. a history that is written by those who were there and are writing about what they see and experience from a particular position.

 

[Jipsah]

You were there?

I had to work that day.

 

[9Rock9]

The only true church is the Church of Springfield led by Reverend Lovejoy.

 

[AV1611VET]

I had to work that day.

I have a feeling a lot of people had to work that day.

 

[Yusuphhai]

Abandon lies and deceit, and choose integrity and honesty. Overcoming the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees is not an easy task.

In terms of theological doctrine, I will rely on the Jewish Church in the United States, but I also need to find a balance between Chinese and English contexts, and I cannot forget that I also have ancestry from the Middle East and East Asia. Cultural globalization seems to be an inevitable choice. English is the world's largest language, while Chinese is the second largest language. I am on the bridge between the two. As long as I find charactors of honesty and integrity in Western and Eastern Christians, I will not emphasize sectarianism.

 

[AV1611VET]

Methinks people are trying to show the title of this thread to be nugatory.

 

[d taylor]

-

​

...I will say concerning, when it comes to what a person must do or believe to receive God's free gift of Eternal Life and become a permanent born again child of God.

...Free grace has the most accurate teachings in this area.

...They rightly divide what a person must believe in to receive Eternal Life and what a believer must do to be a disciple and grow as a believer. As so many denominations wrongly lump all this together.

...These denominations add into the simple act of believing in Jesus for Eternal Life, other requirements that are actually discipleship areas of a believers life. Like repentance of sin, baptism, obedience, love of God, confessing Christ, etc...

 

[SabbathBlessings]

1.2M views · 45K reactions | #God #Jesus #HolySpirit | ChristianBook

#God #Jesus #HolySpirit.

www.facebook.com

Be blessed!

I think mine. Seventh day Adventist

 

[Strong in Him]

Which denomination is the right one?​

None of them.

Jesus is the right One. He is truth and the true faith is having faith in him.
Mainstream denominations all acknowledge, and proclaim, him and this Gospel truth.

 

[rturner76]

I would say it's a toss-up between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. The main difference is that one (all brands of Orthodoxy) believes the revelation has already been written and does not change and the RCC believes that God continues to make revelations to his Church. Other than that and a few details, they are just about the same and most ancient.

All of the others (except maybe Lutheran and Episcopalian) are all over the place.

 

[rockytopva]

I believe in any church denomination CF considers orthodox we have...

1. Good Leaven - Producing Good People
2. Pharisees - Producing Personal Pronouns
3. Sadducees - Producing Unbelief
4. Herodians - Producing Worldliness

With all four fruits enjoying some form of Godliness. Generalized with some scripture...

Good Leaven - The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened. - Matthew 13:33
Pharisees - Like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones. - Matthew 23:27
Sadducees - For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit. - Acts 23:8
Herodians - For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly. - Mark 6:20 (yet Herod would bind John in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife: for he had married her. - Mark 6:17)

Zac Poonen and a two minute video on the Leaven of Herod

Zac Poonen and the full sermon on the bad leaven

So... As far as church denomination there are possibilities of experiencing good or bad fruit. I examine the church senior pastor and music leader before joining any church. If these are salt of the earth type folks you can put weight on then all is good and well.

 

[Phil_D]

Denominationalism is not in keeping with scriptural teaching.

In John 17:17-21, Jesus prayed for unity among his followers. Paul, an inspired writer, told the Corinthians (I Cor. 1:10) that no divisions should exist among them, and they should be “. . . perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” How can we have this if we are following various human standards? All people following the one uniform standard of God’s Word is the only possible way to have the unity Christ desires.

Here is a link to an article about the subject, which is where the above quote came from:

Divine Authority - Seeking Things Above

Here is another scriptural analysis on the issue:

Christ declared He would build His church (Matt. 16:18). That church was built, and to it God added the saved (Acts 2:47). It has never been destroyed, for it was to have been and has been, perpetuated by an indestructible seed, the Word of God (Lk. 8:11; Matt. 24:35). The plea for Christ in not a plea for sectarianism or denominationalism, but for the divine institution built on the deity of Christ, ruled over by Christ, and to be presented unto Christ.

You can find the quote above in the article "A Plea for Christ":

A Plea For Christ — Teaching Truth

Homer Hailey 06/09/19 The plea for the church of Christ is a plea for Christ and for His divine will. The church of Christ has no creed but Christ; it recognizes no law but the law of Christ; and no way but the way of Christ. The plea of the church is a plea for: THE DEITY OF CHRIST

www.teachingtruth.org

Thanks

 

[URA]

A very good question...with a LOT of different answers you may receive!!

Catholic here...and the most distinctive thing about Catholicism, as opposed to every other Christian denomination, is the Pope. As such, if we can prove that Jesus established the role of Pope, with the intent that all generations continue to honor that position, we can prove that Catholicism is the "one true Church". If we disprove that Jesus established the Pope, well, we've got a LOT of other options to go through...

So I offer you (whoever may be reading this) the 2 best pieces of apologetics on the Pope (and thus, Catholicism in general) that I know of. Further reading: Dave Armstrong's "A Biblical Defense of Catholicism".

This one is really in-depth on the Bible:

And this one is in more general terms, more on the philosophy & historical role of the Pope:

Whether or not this totally answers your question, well, who knows. But I pray this approach will deepen your understanding of (at least) one denomination, so whatever denomination you decide upon, it'll be a more informed choice.

 

[AV1611VET]

This one is really in-depth on the Bible:

I like this guy.

And I like his style.

But I have to disagree with his theology.

Re:

Matthew 16:18a And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church;

Jesus wasn't telling Peter that He would build His church on Peter.

He was telling Peter that He would build His church on Peter's confession that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Adam Clarke says it best:

That Peter is not designed in our Lord's words must be evident to all who are not blinded by prejudice. Peter was only one of the builders in this sacred edifice, Eph 2:20 who himself tells us, (with the rest of the believers,) was built on this living foundation stone: 1Pe 2:4,5, therefore Jesus Christ did not say, on thee, Peter, will I build my Church, but changes immediately the expression, and says, upon that very rock, ... to show that he neither addressed Peter, nor any other of the apostles. So, the supremacy of Peter, and the infallibility of the Church of Rome, must be sought in some other scripture, for they certainly are not to be found in this.

And the idea that Peter ever set foot in Rome is not supported by Scripture.

Peter's church was in Babylon.

1 Peter 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

 

[Strong in Him]

Peter's church was in Babylon.

1 Peter 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

Unfortunately there's no icon for "I agree with your post except for the last line."
"Babylon" in the NT often means "Rome". It was used to safeguard Christians who were being persecuted.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You're a reader, aren't you?

This is the definitive writing on our churches:

View attachment 348546

The definitive writing on your churches is a book of lies?

Time to find a better book.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

The definitive writing on your churches is a book of lies?

Is that what I said?

I take it The Trail of Blood is considered by academia to be a "book of lies"?

What else is new?

Time to find a better book.

Any suggestions?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Is that what I said?

I take it The Trail of Blood is considered by academia to be a "book of lies"?

What else is new?

By anyone with a rudimentary understanding of history. One doesn't have to be an academic.

Any suggestions?

There are a lot of good history books.

Here are two:
Church History in Plain Language by Dr. Bruce Shelly
The Story of Christianity by Dr. Justo Gonzalez

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

By anyone with a rudimentary understanding of history.

Sorry.

I don't believe that one bit.

I got good -- (okay, fair) -- grades in "rudimentary history," and I never heard anything that went against (or for) the information contained in that book.

It just wasn't taught.

One doesn't have to be an academic.

No comment.