Which faith movement is the closest to your opinion of what true Christianity is?

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Is there a faith movement that is close to what you believe to be the truth in regards to Christianity?

 

[Castle Church]

I think that we are all part of whatever denomination we think is closest to the Truth, or at least I hope that we are. Sometimes people change denominations based on their reasoning and what they may see as evidence of anther Faith Tradition being closer to the "truth", sometimes they change for other reasons. I have changed a few reasons on my quest to find what I believe to be the "truth".

 

[Albion]

I think that we are all part of whatever denomination we think is closest to the Truth, or at least I hope that we are. Sometimes people change denominations based on their reasoning and what they may see as evidence of anther Faith Tradition being closer to the "truth", sometimes they change for other reasons. I have changed a few reasons on my quest to find what I believe to be the "truth".

I agree. Most people are going to say that it's the denomination they've chosen for themselves, although there are some others who feel that the basics of the faith are to be found in most of them and their own membership choice is, therefore, influenced by some additional factors such as family, location, or the pastor.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

I think that we are all part of whatever denomination we think is closest to the Truth, or at least I hope that we are. Sometimes people change denominations based on their reasoning and what they may see as evidence of anther Faith Tradition being closer to the "truth", sometimes they change for other reasons. I have changed a few reasons on my quest to find what I believe to be the "truth".

I don't think you understood the question. Which faith movement is closest to what you think is the truth, but still different from the truth or missing parts of the truth?

 

[Albion]

Perhaps we need to begin by agreeing on what is meant by "faith movement" in your question. Is that supposed to refer to a particular denomination...or to something broader?

 

[Castle Church]

I don't think you understood the question. Which faith movement is closest to what you think is the truth, but still different from the truth or missing parts of the truth?

I still do not understand the question in that case.

Personally I think that the Protestant faith movements hold the most "truth". Within that movement I think the confessional Lutheran and confessional Reformed hold the most "truth".

I think the Catholic Churches are missing parts of the "truth".
I think the Orthodox Churches are missing parts of the "truth".
I think there are various Protestant groups that are missing parts of the "truth".
I am sure my own Protestant group is missing parts of the "truth".

But I think they all hold value and are aligned with Jesus, they just have different understandings of certain doctrines and dogma. All united in Christ, but with differences that will probably not be resolved until He returns.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Perhaps we need to begin by agreeing on what is meant by "faith movement" in your question. Is that supposed to refer to a particular denomination...or to something broader?

It means whatever you want it to mean. That is what this section of the forums is called.

 

[Albion]

It means whatever you want it to mean. That is what this section of the forums is called.

As far as understanding the question you put to the members is concerned, it means whatever YOU wanted it to mean.

But without waiting for your reply, I'll say that Lutheranism is the "faith movement" that meets the two requirements we were asked about better than any other. I am almost inclined to answer that it's Anglicanism instead, except that I cannot put my finger on anything that's standard in Anglicanism which amounts to a clearcut belief or practice that falls short of the truth.

 

[Fritz Kobus]

I would have to study a lot more but I think I am in alignment much with Anabaptists except for non resistance and end times.

Reading the 39 articles of the Episcopalian (or was it the Anglican) church I see mostly things I agree with.

I want to study the Orthodox Church more and might find a good measure of compatibility there.

One place where I can have heavy disagreement with most any church is end times, being partial preterist myself.

I also have problems with the penal atonement theory.

Well that is what I grabbed off the top of my head, probably a lot more of smaller concern.

 

[Josiah]

Of course, I think Confessional/Conservative Lutheranism is most right....

BUT there are many things where Lutheranism is silent.... "we just don't go there" (to quote my doctrine teacher)... that we leave as MYSTERY. There probably IS truth in those areas, Lutherans simply hold that we don't know exactly what it is. The details of the Trinity... how Jesus can be 100% God and 100% man.... the exact physics in Real Presence.... even which (if any) of the Atonement Theories is correct. So, I can't say it has all the truth.

Now... when we get to heaven... might I discover that Calvin was right about a couple of things Lutheran's don't teach? Yup. That Anabaptists were right about something Lutheran's are silent on? Yes. Lutherans don't claim infallibility... just as they don't have dogma on everything.

What I Like About Lutheranism

The following is not at all meant to be all-inclusive or in any particular order.... 1. Humility.... mystery.... respect. In Lutheranism, there is a deep respect for what God says and a cooresponding humility in what we theorize. Great attention is given to what God said (the very...

www.christianityhaven.com

.

 

[Lees]

Is there a faith movement that is close to what you believe to be the truth in regards to Christianity?

I don't think you understood the question. Which faith movement is closest to what you think is the truth, but still different from the truth or missing parts of the truth?

Two different questions. So, which one are you really asking?

Lees

 

[Joshua1Eight]

I still do not understand the question in that case.

Personally I think that the Protestant faith movements hold the most "truth". Within that movement I think the confessional Lutheran and confessional Reformed hold the most "truth".

I think the Catholic Churches are missing parts of the "truth".
I think the Orthodox Churches are missing parts of the "truth".
I think there are various Protestant groups that are missing parts of the "truth".
I am sure my own Protestant group is missing parts of the "truth".

But I think they all hold value and are aligned with Jesus, they just have different understandings of certain doctrines and dogma. All united in Christ, but with differences that will probably not be resolved until He returns.

What part of the truth is the Catholic Church missing?

 

[Albion]

What part of the truth is the Catholic Church missing?

Good question.

Here are some contenders--

The Papacy is an office that's a purely human invention and the Pope certainly isn't infallible whenever he chooses.

There is no justification for the worship of saints, even if it is described using another word.

Transubstantiation is a Medieval myth.

The bodily Assumption of Mary, which is a required dogma of members, is without either historic or Scriptural basis.

...and, of course, those are only a few of the items that could be named.

 

[Josiah]

What part of the truth is the Catholic Church missing?

@Joshua1Eight


Former Catholic here...

IMO, it's not that the Roman Catholic Church is MISSING stuff (and that's the primary issue) - although I'D argue it's missing a clear proclamation of the Gospel (it's "muddy" at best). My "issue" with your denomination is all the unsubstantiated ADDITIONS (and as dogma, at that - required, unquestionable teachings). Just to list a few: Infallibility of the RCC Pope, Purgatory (at least the RCC version of it), Transubstantiation (rather than sticking to Real Presence), Assumption of Mary, and some more. I think it's the ADDITIONS that push it further from Truth rather than what's missing.

IF the RCC had left a lot of those things as simply a common view (as they all originally were), I'd still be Catholic. But it made them dogmas - required, unquestionable. Funny though... all my family are Catholics (except my brother), all over the place. Bur I can't think of even one who accepts Purgatory or the Infallibility of their Pope or Transubstantiation or the Assumption. TRUTH is: I'm as Catholic as they are, they as non-Catholic as I am. Here's the difference: I don't say I accept something when I don't. Slight example: My sister and her husband dutifully took the required "natural planning" course so they could get married in church. They were taught the RCC's birth control method. There were several couples in the class and during the break, all expressed their problems with this method and shared they had no intention of doing this and yet all of them signed a paper saying they would - so they could be Catholics and receive the Sacrament of Marriage. Joshua, I could not do that. It's the primary reason I left. There's 2,875 points in that Catechism - Catholics MUST swallow all of it whole, "with docility" - not because it's true but because the RCC teaches it. I'm good with probably 95% of those 2875 paragraphs but not 100% and certainly NOT for the reason I must: Because the RCC teaches it.

All that said, I still hold the RCC in esteem... I think it's one of the best denominations. I'm not a Catholic basher (there are some here at CH), I'm more often on the other side, agreeing with and defending Catholicism. But I'm not Catholic anymore. I probably lean more in that direction than "EvangelicaIism" but I'm neither. I think MUCH of what the RCC teaches is sound and solid, I love the worship and its strong liturgical/sacramental practice. I deeply appreciate it's bold (and fearless) embrace of Pro-life, pro-family, pro-morality. And much more that I affirm and hold in esteem.

What I Like About Lutheranism

The following is not at all meant to be all-inclusive or in any particular order.... 1. Humility.... mystery.... respect. In Lutheranism, there is a deep respect for what God says and a cooresponding humility in what we theorize. Great attention is given to what God said (the very...

www.christianityhaven.com

Blessings


Josiah




.

 

[Lees]

The Roman Church has doctrinal issues because it has been around as a church the longest time. It's origin was the church Paul knew as having great faith known throughout the Roman world. (Rom. 1:8)

Satan is not idle. Once a church begins he sets out to destroy or compromise it. And he is very good in what he does.

Most all original Protestant churches have fallen prey also at this time. Their doctrine has become so twisted or watered down that others have had to split off to try and get back to the true Churches faith.

Christianity is the only real 'faith' movement. Others may have 'faith' and believe in their religion. But in Christianity faith is the basis, the requirement, a doctrinal position to believe.

I have heard the accusation leveled at some as 'easy believism'. But Christian 'belief' is neither easy or hard. It simply is there in the life of the believer. You either have it or you don't. One who has it can't make themselves 'unbelieve' it. One who doesn't have it can't make themselves believe it.

Lees

 

[Fritz Kobus]

The Roman Church has doctrinal issues because it has been around as a church the longest time. It's origin was the church Paul knew as having great faith known throughout the Roman world. (Rom. 1:8)

I would think that the one church that has been around the longest time is the Orthodox Church. After the split, it was the Roman Catholic Church that went astray, adding all kinds of extra-biblical things to their beliefs. The Orthodox Church should much better resemble (and therefor have continuity with) the early church than does the Roman Catholic.

 

[Albion]

I would think that the one church that has been around the longest time is the Orthodox Church.

That's probably quite accurate to say, even though many different churches argue the issue to their own benefit by citing true or mythical historical events that they have decided are "proof" that they are older than other Christian churches.

After the split, it was the Roman Catholic Church that went astray, adding all kinds of extra-biblical things to their beliefs. The Orthodox Church should much better resemble (and therefore have continuity with) the early church than does the Roman Catholic.

So we actually have two competing claims built into this kind of argument.

One is about a church merely being in existence longer than any other, while the related argument is that it has been around longer as the same entity, maintaining the same doctrines, polity, and practices, etc.

 

[Albion]

The Roman Church has doctrinal issues because it has been around as a church the longest time. It's origin was the church Paul knew as having great faith known throughout the Roman world. (Rom. 1:8)

No, the mere location of a Christian congregation anywhere in Paul's time hardly translates as evidence of a connection to some denomination that wasn't even organized and recognized until centuries later.

 

[Lees]

I would think that the one church that has been around the longest time is the Orthodox Church. After the split, it was the Roman Catholic Church that went astray, adding all kinds of extra-biblical things to their beliefs. The Orthodox Church should much better resemble (and therefor have continuity with) the early church than does the Roman Catholic.

The Orthodox Church had/has doctrinal issues also as it's doctrines are similar to the Roman church. It too has many 'extral-biblical things' added.

The Roman church, the believers in Rome, who Paul wrote to is the beginning of Christianity in Rome. Their faith was known throughout the whole world. (Rom. 1:8)

That is the beginning of what we call Roman Catholic today, though it took many years to take on the form it is today.

Lees

 

[Lees]

No, the mere location of a Christian congregation anywhere in Paul's time hardly translates as evidence of a connection to some denomination that wasn't even organized and recognized until centuries later.

Paul wrote to the church, the believers at Rome. Their faith was known throughout the whole world. (Rom. 1:8) That is the origin of what we call Roman Catholic today. Unless you know of an earlier church then the one Paul wrote to.

The Roman Church today didn't start out as it is today. Its errors in doctrine and it's organization take place over many hundreds of years.

Lees