Problem 1: Denominational Correctness

[Omni]

Hi. I hope you're all keeping well, and for anyone who's come into contact with me on the forums, I hope I wasn't too intense (I get told I'm like that sometimes).

Anyway, let me get to the point of this thread. I have a few genuine logical problems regarding various aspects of Christianity, that I have asked so many times, to so many Christians, but never gotten a logical solution to. If anyone here feels up to the task, please, I'd love to hear a logical solution. I'll post one problem at a time, and this one is the first, of maybe eight or ten problems that I'd really like to explore over the coming days or weeks. I'm interested in how you guys get past these, and I'm not here to mock or scoff, I'm just a genuinely curious person and I'd like to know if anybody has thought about these, and if so, come up with any logical solutions. So, anyway, thanks for your time, and here goes.

Problem 1: The Problem of Denominational Correctness

So, within Christianity, there are many different denominations, obviously. And these denominations hold specific doctrinal views on the bible. Their adherents (in all my experiences with Christians) are predominantly exclusivist, meaning that they believe their interpretations to be the singular, genuine truth about God. But I see a logical problem with this. If all denominations and faith groups assert that they have the exclusive, specific, genuine truth, then it is logically impossible that all these denominations are correct in that assertion. A specific truth isn't a general truth, and thus there can only be one specific truth, not thousands.

So, the obvious first question to ask would be:

If there is only one, singular, genuine, true interpretation, what is it?

But of course, the replies I have received on that question have been predictable; the adherents of a particular denomination have asserted that their interpretations are correct. This is just as often asserted in direct terms (I am a Methodist and I believe thus), as in indirect terms (only faith is required for salvation). But never have any of these assertions been accompanied by a logical reason why a nonbeliever such as myself should trust any one particular person making the assertion, over another. There have been no responses which included a foolproof (or even remotely close) mechanism for determining an interpretation's correctness in contrast to another's incorrectness, logically. In all cases so far, I have been left to arbitrarily choose any of these denominational interpretations on a basis of nothing more than the assertion of its correctness itself. This, for me, is like when my son says he didn't throw the sand first, and my cousin's kid says she didn't throw the sand first.

Who to believe?

So, since I can't establish any logical reason that one interpretation wins out over another, other than personal choice, I'll move on to the second question in this problem, which is:
If we can't establish beyond any doubt which denomination is actually correct, what does it matter, logically, if we choose any one denomination over the other?

Now, to get them out of the way, there are the obvious theological problems with this question, the most obvious one being that it matters for a Christian's salvation whether they've "gotten it right" or not. If they believe a heresy, they might not get to heaven. But again, we cannot establish (logically) between the denominations, an agreement on which teachings are heresy and which aren't. Therefore even if it does matter for a person's salvation which denominational beliefs they hold, it's irrelevant, because we can't establish for certain which denominational beliefs are the true, singular, correct ones. So, at least to me, everybody is essentially making yellow snow in the wind on that.

So the next subproblem in this problem is:

If we can't rationally establish why it is logically preferable to believe in say Methodist doctrine over Baptist doctrine, other than a personal belief that one's chosen interpretation leads to heaven, then even if one denomination has stumbled upon the truth, surely no denomination can be logically certain that theirs is it, given that every single denomination except for one, must be incorrect, and we have no way of logically deducing which one it is.

Now, obviously, people form particular denominations can be certain of their correctness without actually being correct, but nobody can be certain of their correctness in a totally objective, true sense, if we're unable to objectively and totally define which denomination is actually the right one. This, for me, puts what is thus far an unfixable hole in the whole idea of the Christian concept of "truth". Because even though a person might absolutely be convinced they have the "one true truth", I simply can't accept their word for it, based on everything I've already said.

So, if someone can present to me a logical mechanism for determining which one of these denominational interpretations is actually true (if any, because it is actually possible that in not being able to establish for sure which is true, that nobody has actually found the true one yet. We just don't know) I'd be very grateful for that. Otherwise, I can't help thinking that denominationalism is all a bit pointless.

So yea, thanks again for reading, and I'll keep a close eye on the thread and point out any responses I think are worth exploring.

'Til next time,

Omni.

 

[Willie-T]

Protestants totally shattered the "denominational" beliefs of what was the only church back then. So, those Catholics who first began worshiping with Martin Luther probably most certainly still held a split idea of what was "correct".

I think, from that time till now, God's spirit have done more leading of many Christians than any particular church.

 

[Omni]

Protestants totally shattered the "denominational" beliefs of what was the only church back then. So, those Catholics who first began worshiping with Martin Luther probably most certainly still held a split idea of what was "correct".

I think, from that time till now, God's spirit have done more leading of many Christians than any particular church.

Thanks for that. I understand that prior to Protestantism, which came about with Luther and the reformation of the Church, that there were several "Partiarchal Houses" of Orthodoxy. The Roman house broke of from these and became the Roman Catholic Church (Literally, the "universal church", which I assume was an attempt to assert their doctrine as true and all-encompassing), and then many, many years later the Catholic church was shattered into various sects after the Reformation, which gave rise to Protestantism, which then fostered many of its own splittings into different denominations.

You are obviously a Protestant of some kind, and believe in being "directly led by the spirit", as opposed to taking your beliefs from a Priest. And that's of course your decision, but I'm not sure that you have any more objective reason to believe your interpretation of things correct than does an Eastern Orthodox, for instance.

Does that make sense?

So that's what I'm trying to solve. The problem that if personal preference (or even upbringing, or social class) are the factors upon which a person believes one denomination over the other, then isn't denominationalism sort of separated from a "universal, singular Christian truth" by its very definition?

Thanks for your answer and for taking the time to write, but I'm afraid it hasn't satisfied the problem, for me at least.

 

[Willie-T]

Thanks for that. I understand that prior to Protestantism, which came about with Luther and the reformation of the Church, that there were several "Partiarchal Houses" of Orthodoxy. The Roman house broke of from these and became the Roman Catholic Church (Literally, the "universal church", which I assume was an attempt to assert their doctrine as true and all-encompassing), and then many, many years later the Catholic church was shattered into various sects after the Reformation, which gave rise to Protestantism, which then fostered many of its own splittings into different denominations.

You are obviously a Protestant of some kind, and believe in being "directly led by the spirit", as opposed to taking your beliefs from a Priest. And that's of course your decision, but I'm not sure that you have any more objective reason to believe your interpretation of things correct than does an Eastern Orthodox, for instance.

Does that make sense?

So that's what I'm trying to solve. The problem that if personal preference (or even upbringing, or social class) are the factors upon which a person believes one denomination over the other, then isn't denominationalism sort of separated from a "universal, singular Christian truth" by its very definition?

Thanks for your answer and for taking the time to write, but I'm afraid it hasn't satisfied the problem, for me at least.

I kind of look at it as Christ didn't leave any instruction on the organism and practical functioning of a "church organization", and that is really all "religion" developed into. It was the mixing of old Jewish customs, and an attempt to live in the freedom from that very oppression, if you will, that men soon organized into, more or less, the same sort of structure they knew and understood under Judaism.

And, frankly, I see the church just becoming a different kind of religious structure when it comes to what became accepted, and often "required" practice that Jesus never even mentioned.

Doesn't matter if it is C or P, it is man's invention, not Christ's plan.

 

[dcontroversal]

I believe there is one central truth concerning everything when it comes to the word of God...and if everyone is honest we will all come to the same conclusions as the Holy Spirit leads and guides into all truth......unfortunately, today Christianity has as many flavors as Baskin Robbins has ice cream flavors!

 

[Willie-T]

I think it is a matter of understanding that Christ didn't come to bring us rules, but to leave us with a heart attitude.

 

[ember]

I'm leaning towards all the central truths may yet prove to be fringe areas and when we see face to face we may only be able to say


oh


which will be a great relief for some of us


I'm looking forward to it

 

[49]

Isn't Jesus Christ the Head of the church, and the church the body? I have always felt that being the case, Baptists could be an arm, Methodists could be another arm, Pentecostals a knee or leg, and so forth. I have never believed any denomination is "the true one"; I believe in Jesus Christ and God Almighty. I go to church to worship and fellowship. God's Word says "pure and undefiled religion is this, that you visit the widow and the orphan in their time of affliction". Hope I did not misquote.

 

[crossnote]

Protestants totally shattered the "denominational" beliefs of what was the only church back then. So, those Catholics who first began worshiping with Martin Luther probably most certainly still held a split idea of what was "correct".

I think, from that time till now, God's spirit have done more leading of many Christians than any particular church.

Not 'the only church back then', there was also the Eastern Orthodox Church which by the way Rome should repair that breach before preaching 'unity' to us.

 

[RussellJBenigno]

Like Pilot said,"What is Truth". I find that most denominations are "Intellectually Dishonest". Men will always interfere with what God is doing. This is not regulated to Christianity or Judaism. Buddha came up with a psychological, philosophy teaching to deal with misery. There is nothing in his teachings which are religious in nature. Buddha was only interested teaching people how to change their state of mind and thus bring them peace. It was Buddha's followers who introduced Brahmanism [gods] into his philosophy. In like manner modern christianity has been hijacked and has no resemblance to what Jesus and Paul taught. We had no bible for 300yrs after Christ ascended. This tells us how important it was in God's plan. As soon as we had the bible it was exalted as an object of worship and a replacement of the Holy Spirit. The Christ left us with the Holy Spirit as our teacher and guide. Between the Holy Spirit, Torah and Prophets we basically had all we needed to live a godly life.

 

[RussellJBenigno]

I believe there is one central truth concerning everything when it comes to the word of God...and if everyone is honest we will all come to the same conclusions as the Holy Spirit leads and guides into all truth......unfortunately, today Christianity has as many flavors as Baskin Robbins has ice cream flavors!

I agree that if we are lead by the Holy Spirit we will just about have the same conclusions. The problem is that many in the modern church are not lead by the Holy Spirit, because they are not taught how to hear from the Holy Spirit. Also many are taught the Holy Spirit is not for today.
I have a very good story about the Holy Spirit teaching in my own life. I was told by God to read the bible as it is without applying anything I was taught. I was told to rely on the Holy Spirit for my understanding. I encountered about 25 teachings I had never learned in church or bible college. I knew of no group who taught these teachings from Jesus. I then read a book which had every teachings I had found. I asked the author where he learned these teachings. He told me,"From the Holy Spirit". So yes I agree, that if we have the Holy Spirit we will mostly be in agreement.

 

[Kaycie]

"Denomination" is your first clue. We are only dominated by Christ, not by man made doctrines (Matthew 28:18). The bible says to study for yourself to show thyself approved unto God. You have to use your muscle and a shovel, and dig deep into the word and search for truth. God says if you search for Him with all your heart you'll find Him. He says to ask, seek, and knock, and the door of understanding will be opened unto you. You consider the way you worship and see if it matches the bible. God is the only audience, and it must be done His way. He says that worship is to be orderly, does that match charismatics? He says not to call anyone on earth father (in a religious sense), does that match Catholics? The bible says that baptism saves, does that match the faith only doctrine? You will be judged by the bible and by your ability to follow it, according to your ability, understanding, and effort.

 

[Dino246]

Your question, Omni, is a good one and I'll put my one cent in. You may decide if it's actually worth two cents....

You say "Within Christianity there are many different denominations"... let's start by noting what is, and is not, within Christianity. Christianity is, in its essence, the belief that Jesus is God in the flesh, and that He came and lived among humans, having been born as a human male. He died on a Roman cross as a sacrifice for the sins of humankind, was buried, and three days later rose from the dead. Jesus is the only way to get to God. There is much more that might be said here; I'm just trying to touch the high points.

There are many groups which claim affinity or belonging to Christianity, which aren't considered by others to be Christian. These include Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and many smaller sects. There are also branches of "Christianity" which are suspect because of some of their core doctrines; this includes the Roman catholic church. There are many labels used to identify groups which are considered Christian. The challenge is that adherence to a particular denominational group does not make one a Christian, so the denominational labels are misleading. One might be a "member" of the Anglican church and not believe in Christ's resurrection.

Christians accept the Bible (66 books) to be the Word of God, and the standard of faith and practice. There are many good, logically sound reasons why we can accept this. Because the Bible is the standard, we generally hold that if a belief cannot be supported from the Bible, it must be held lightly if at all.

Is there one truth, yes. Can it be proven logically which denomination, if any, has that truth, no, I don't believe so, despite the best efforts of a great many people. Some views are better supported in the Bible than others, but different people may not agree on what constitutes support for a given view. There are, however, some things which are worth getting right (in terms of biblical correctness) because wrong doctrine may result in eternal damnation. I have a strong suspicion that when each of us arrives in heaven (for those of us who do), we'll learn a few or many things we had understood incorrectly.

We believe that God is full of love and grace for us, His children, and that His great love covers over our lack of understanding or minor areas of incorrectness. However, as I interact with more believers of different backgrounds, I find that there is a great deal of commonality between adherents of different denominations, and that what separates us is much less important than what brings us together.

Let me encourage you to keep asking the hard questions and looking for good answers. Let me also encourage you to seek God directly through Jesus Christ, and not allow yourself to be waylaid by the inadequate answers of well-meaning but imperfect believers such as myself.

 

[crossnote]

Like Pilot said,"What is Truth". I find that most denominations are "Intellectually Dishonest". Men will always interfere with what God is doing. This is not regulated to Christianity or Judaism. Buddha came up with a psychological, philosophy teaching to deal with misery. There is nothing in his teachings which are religious in nature. Buddha was only interested teaching people how to change their state of mind and thus bring them peace. It was Buddha's followers who introduced Brahmanism [gods] into his philosophy. In like manner modern christianity has been hijacked and has no resemblance to what Jesus and Paul taught. We had no bible for 300yrs after Christ ascended. This tells us how important it was in God's plan. As soon as we had the bible it was exalted as an object of worship and a replacement of the Holy Spirit. The Christ left us with the Holy Spirit as our teacher and guide. Between the Holy Spirit, Torah and Prophets we basically had all we needed to live a godly life.

Buddha was wrong before the Brahmans. If what you say is true.."Buddha was only interested teaching people how to change their state of mind and thus bring them peace." he may have been sincere but he was sincerely wrong. Salvation was entrusted to the Jews and was manifest in God's Promises ...not a self effort program of "changing one's mind to bring peace". It had already been revealed even from Adam that without the shedding of Blood their was no forgiveness of sins, and thus no peace.
Modern Christianity has not been hijacked only Churchianity...but that has always been.

 

[RussellJBenigno]

Buddha was wrong before the Brahmans. If what you say is true.."Buddha was only interested teaching people how to change their state of mind and thus bring them peace." he may have been sincere but he was sincerely wrong. Salvation was entrusted to the Jews and was manifest in God's Promises ...not a self effort program of "changing one's mind to bring peace". It had already been revealed even from Adam that without the shedding of Blood their was no forgiveness of sins, and thus no peace.
Modern Christianity has not been hijacked only Churchianity...but that has always been.

I'm not speaking about Salvation, sacrifice, nor forgiveness. Much of what Buddha taught in the form of meditation can be found in the Psalms. Learning how to quiet your mind is an act of meditation. Buddha was merely teaching people how not to be caught up in turmoil. Nothing more and nothing less. If I told you to close your eyes, take a deep breath and let it out, relax the muscles in your forehead and think of nothing. Your blood pressure would drop and a calmness would lead you into a peaceful sleep. I really don't see anything so terrible taking place. And here is the interesting thing about Buddha, he gave glory to God for showing him how to do this. Anything good on this earth proceeds from God. I assume the point of this thread is looking for Truth.

 

[Omni]

Your question, Omni, is a good one and I'll put my one cent in. You may decide if it's actually worth two cents....

You say "Within Christianity there are many different denominations"... let's start by noting what is, and is not, within Christianity. Christianity is, in its essence, the belief that Jesus is God in the flesh, and that He came and lived among humans, having been born as a human male. He died on a Roman cross as a sacrifice for the sins of humankind, was buried, and three days later rose from the dead. Jesus is the only way to get to God. There is much more that might be said here; I'm just trying to touch the high points.

......

Is there one truth, yes. Can it be proven logically which denomination, if any, has that truth, no, I don't believe so, despite the best efforts of a great many people. Some views are better supported in the Bible than others, but different people may not agree on what constitutes support for a given view. There are, however, some things which are worth getting right (in terms of biblical correctness) because wrong doctrine may result in eternal damnation. I have a strong suspicion that when each of us arrives in heaven (for those of us who do), we'll learn a few or many things we had understood incorrectly.

......

Let me encourage you to keep asking the hard questions and looking for good answers. Let me also encourage you to seek God directly through Jesus Christ, and not allow yourself to be waylaid by the inadequate answers of well-meaning but imperfect believers such as myself.

This is a very refreshing response. It's sort of ironic, actually, that by being honest and admitting you may be wrong, you make me root for you to be right. Even if your answer didn't solve the problem I posed, it's nice to hear someone admit that actually, yes, the problem exists.

Great response. Thanks for that.

 

[Omni]

Like Pilot said,"What is Truth". I find that most denominations are "Intellectually Dishonest". Men will always interfere with what God is doing. This is not regulated to Christianity or Judaism. Buddha came up with a psychological, philosophy teaching to deal with misery. There is nothing in his teachings which are religious in nature. Buddha was only interested teaching people how to change their state of mind and thus bring them peace. It was Buddha's followers who introduced Brahmanism [gods] into his philosophy. In like manner modern christianity has been hijacked and has no resemblance to what Jesus and Paul taught. We had no bible for 300yrs after Christ ascended. This tells us how important it was in God's plan. As soon as we had the bible it was exalted as an object of worship and a replacement of the Holy Spirit. The Christ left us with the Holy Spirit as our teacher and guide. Between the Holy Spirit, Torah and Prophets we basically had all we needed to live a godly life.

I can see what you're trying to illustrate; the bible being a sort of golden statue in a way, and actually, I don't think it would be such a bad thing if people were more interested in peaceful minds and peaceful behaviors, than in doctrinal argumentation, whatever religion or irreligion they belong to. I've always thought, funnily enough, that Jesus' teachings bore an uncanny resemblance to Buddha's in many ways (obviously not so much in some other ways). The whole idea of compassion -- feed the poor, clothe the naked, tend to the sick, love your enemies kinda thing -- seems to be something quite central to both Buddhism and Christianity, though moreso for the former, because the latter obviously includes the supernatural concepts like salvation from death and sin, eternal life, God's transcendental nature, which aren't part of Buddhist thought. But yea, it's kinda funny that you brought that up, actually. Spooky.

Thanks for that.

 

[Omni]

Isn't Jesus Christ the Head of the church, and the church the body? I have always felt that being the case, Baptists could be an arm, Methodists could be another arm, Pentecostals a knee or leg, and so forth. I have never believed any denomination is "the true one"; I believe in Jesus Christ and God Almighty. I go to church to worship and fellowship. God's Word says "pure and undefiled religion is this, that you visit the widow and the orphan in their time of affliction". Hope I did not misquote.

I like that you make it simple. "Look guys, no point in all this bickering. Let's go do something good in the world". I can't argue with that.

Thanks for the response.

 

[RussellJBenigno]

. I've always thought, funnily enough, that Jesus' teachings bore an uncanny resemblance to Buddha's in many ways (obviously not so much in some other ways). The whole idea of compassion -- feed the poor, clothe the naked, tend to the sick, love your enemies kinda thing -- seems to be something quite central to both Buddhism and Christianity, though moreso for the former, because the latter obviously includes the supernatural concepts like salvation from death and sin, eternal life, God's transcendental nature, which aren't part of Buddhist thought. But yea, it's kinda funny that you brought that up, actually. Spooky.

Thanks for that.

God's Truth is Truth no matter who teaches it. I have studied quite a few religions and found similarities expressed in scripture.
Out of all the religions; the idolatry of worshiping the bible in modern christianity is the most offensive to me.

 

[atwhatcost]

Hi. I hope you're all keeping well, and for anyone who's come into contact with me on the forums, I hope I wasn't too intense (I get told I'm like that sometimes).

Anyway, let me get to the point of this thread. I have a few genuine logical problems regarding various aspects of Christianity, that I have asked so many times, to so many Christians, but never gotten a logical solution to. If anyone here feels up to the task, please, I'd love to hear a logical solution. I'll post one problem at a time, and this one is the first, of maybe eight or ten problems that I'd really like to explore over the coming days or weeks. I'm interested in how you guys get past these, and I'm not here to mock or scoff, I'm just a genuinely curious person and I'd like to know if anybody has thought about these, and if so, come up with any logical solutions. So, anyway, thanks for your time, and here goes.

Problem 1: The Problem of Denominational Correctness

So, within Christianity, there are many different denominations, obviously. And these denominations hold specific doctrinal views on the bible. Their adherents (in all my experiences with Christians) are predominantly exclusivist, meaning that they believe their interpretations to be the singular, genuine truth about God. But I see a logical problem with this. If all denominations and faith groups assert that they have the exclusive, specific, genuine truth, then it is logically impossible that all these denominations are correct in that assertion. A specific truth isn't a general truth, and thus there can only be one specific truth, not thousands.

So, the obvious first question to ask would be:

If there is only one, singular, genuine, true interpretation, what is it?

But of course, the replies I have received on that question have been predictable; the adherents of a particular denomination have asserted that their interpretations are correct. This is just as often asserted in direct terms (I am a Methodist and I believe thus), as in indirect terms (only faith is required for salvation). But never have any of these assertions been accompanied by a logical reason why a nonbeliever such as myself should trust any one particular person making the assertion, over another. There have been no responses which included a foolproof (or even remotely close) mechanism for determining an interpretation's correctness in contrast to another's incorrectness, logically. In all cases so far, I have been left to arbitrarily choose any of these denominational interpretations on a basis of nothing more than the assertion of its correctness itself. This, for me, is like when my son says he didn't throw the sand first, and my cousin's kid says she didn't throw the sand first.

Who to believe?

So, since I can't establish any logical reason that one interpretation wins out over another, other than personal choice, I'll move on to the second question in this problem, which is:
If we can't establish beyond any doubt which denomination is actually correct, what does it matter, logically, if we choose any one denomination over the other?

Now, to get them out of the way, there are the obvious theological problems with this question, the most obvious one being that it matters for a Christian's salvation whether they've "gotten it right" or not. If they believe a heresy, they might not get to heaven. But again, we cannot establish (logically) between the denominations, an agreement on which teachings are heresy and which aren't. Therefore even if it does matter for a person's salvation which denominational beliefs they hold, it's irrelevant, because we can't establish for certain which denominational beliefs are the true, singular, correct ones. So, at least to me, everybody is essentially making yellow snow in the wind on that.

So the next subproblem in this problem is:

If we can't rationally establish why it is logically preferable to believe in say Methodist doctrine over Baptist doctrine, other than a personal belief that one's chosen interpretation leads to heaven, then even if one denomination has stumbled upon the truth, surely no denomination can be logically certain that theirs is it, given that every single denomination except for one, must be incorrect, and we have no way of logically deducing which one it is.

Now, obviously, people form particular denominations can be certain of their correctness without actually being correct, but nobody can be certain of their correctness in a totally objective, true sense, if we're unable to objectively and totally define which denomination is actually the right one. This, for me, puts what is thus far an unfixable hole in the whole idea of the Christian concept of "truth". Because even though a person might absolutely be convinced they have the "one true truth", I simply can't accept their word for it, based on everything I've already said.

So, if someone can present to me a logical mechanism for determining which one of these denominational interpretations is actually true (if any, because it is actually possible that in not being able to establish for sure which is true, that nobody has actually found the true one yet. We just don't know) I'd be very grateful for that. Otherwise, I can't help thinking that denominationalism is all a bit pointless.

So yea, thanks again for reading, and I'll keep a close eye on the thread and point out any responses I think are worth exploring.

'Til next time,

Omni.

What came first, the chicken or the egg? No, that's it. That's the first thing I want answered when it comes to all living things. Don't tell me about evolution, certainly don't tell me about creation, answer that question first.

See the problem there? Without any background with the evolution theory or the creation theory, how would anyone be able to answer that question logically to me? (And there IS a logical answer to it.)

I see the same problem here. You don't want to discuss God. You want to discuss denominations before any concept of God. (And that you were told who God is by someone isn't a real concept of God either.)

Deal with the first real problem, and then we'll get to the other "problems" you have. Would you eat an omelette if you never understood what an egg is? Likewise, you're trying to figure out religion without figuring out the creator. That's why you can't get logical answers. You don't have the background to understand if you ever really got one.

So, start with the real first question, instead of the nine or ten you have to avoid the first one.