Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
A Seeker’s Dilemma: Which Protestant Church Should I Join?

A Seeker’s Dilemma: Which Protestant Church Should I Join?

Last updated on: July 12, 2026 at 6:54 pm by Dennis Knapp

0 Comments

A Seeker’s Dilemma: Which Protestant Church Should I Join? 2026-07-12T18:54:45-06:00 Dennis Knapp

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Image created by the author using AI.

Suppose Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy were not options for me. Suppose I became convinced that I had to join a Protestant church. How would I determine which one Christ wants me to join?

To be clear, this thought experiment does not argue for Catholicism, nor does it question the sincerity of Protestants. It simply asks what method a sincere seeker ought to follow when choosing among Protestant churches.

As I begin that search, I must start with several basic assumptions that I believe nearly all Protestants would affirm:

God inspired Scripture.
Scripture teaches objective truth.
Christ intended Christians to believe what Scripture teaches.
Contradictory doctrines cannot all be true.

If those assumptions are true, then I should seek the Protestant church whose teachings most faithfully reflect what Scripture actually teaches, including on baptism, the Eucharist, and church government.

That brings me to a simple syllogism:

Premise 1: Scripture teaches a definite truth about baptism, the Eucharist, and church government.

Premise 2: Protestants who equally affirm Scripture reach incompatible conclusions on those doctrines.

Conclusion: Therefore, at least one of those Protestant interpretations does not faithfully reflect what Scripture teaches.

This conclusion simply follows from the law of non-contradiction. If Scripture teaches one truth about these doctrines, then contradictory interpretations cannot all be correct. As a sincere seeker, my task is not merely to find a church that appeals to Scripture, but to identify the one whose teachings most faithfully reflect what Scripture actually teaches.

The Seeker’s Problem

As I begin my search, I visit several local Protestant churches. Each one affirms the Bible as the final authority for all Christians.

Before long, I discover significant differences. One church teaches infant baptism, while another teaches believer’s baptism. One teaches that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, while another teaches that the bread and cup are purely symbolic memorials. Church government also varies widely. Some churches teach that bishops are part of Christ’s design for the Church, while others maintain that each local congregation should govern itself.

Despite these differences, every church insists that it simply follows what Scripture teaches. Each appeals to the same Bible as its final authority.

Yet the contradictory doctrines I encounter cannot all be true. Scripture cannot simultaneously teach infant baptism and believer’s baptism as the proper mode of Christian initiation. It cannot teach both Christ’s true presence in the Eucharist and a purely symbolic memorial. Nor can it prescribe mutually exclusive forms of church government.

At least one of these churches, however sincere, has misunderstood what Scripture teaches.

How Would I Decide?

So how would I determine which church to join?

Should I read the Bible for myself and compare each church’s teachings with Scripture? But hasn’t every Protestant pastor already done that? Most have studied Scripture far more extensively than I have.

Should I seek God’s direction through prayer? Each pastor appears to have a vibrant prayer life.

Should I follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Every pastor believes the Holy Spirit leads him in his interpretation of Scripture.

Perhaps I should study Protestant scholars. Yet I quickly discover that respected scholars continue to disagree over many of the same doctrines.

Should I simply choose the church that “seems most biblical”? But that only restates the problem. Biblical according to whom?

Casey Chalk and the Problem of Perspicuity

At this point, I came across Casey Chalk’s book The Obscurity of Scripture. Rather than criticizing Scripture itself, Chalk examines the Protestant doctrine of perspicuity—the belief that Scripture is sufficiently clear in its teaching.

His argument caught my attention because it addressed the very problem I faced as a seeker. If Scripture is sufficiently clear, why do sincere, Bible-believing Christians continue to reach incompatible conclusions about doctrines Scripture addresses?

Chalk does not deny that Scripture teaches truth. Rather, he questions whether the doctrine of perspicuity adequately explains the reality of Protestant disagreement. Christians who affirm the same Bible, seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit, pray earnestly, and study diligently nevertheless arrive at contradictory conclusions about baptism, the Eucharist, church government, and many other doctrines.

As I reflected on my own search, I realized that Chalk had articulated the problem I was struggling to solve.

“But Those Aren’t Essential Doctrines”

As I returned to these churches and expressed my concerns about baptism, the Eucharist, and church government, I often heard the same response: Those aren’t essential doctrines. The essentials, I was told, concern the gospel and salvation, not secondary matters such as baptism, the Eucharist, or church government.

Very well. For the sake of argument, suppose I grant that point. My question still remains.

If Scripture teaches something about baptism, the Eucharist, and church government, then I want to believe what Scripture teaches. Whether those doctrines determine salvation is a different question. My concern is much simpler:

What does Scripture actually teach?

That raises several questions:

Why did the apostles devote so much attention to these subjects?
Why did the Reformers divide over them?
Why should a sincere seeker intentionally remain uncertain about doctrines God chose to reveal?

Calling these doctrines “non-essential” does not answer my question. It only shifts the discussion from whether they matter for salvation to what Scripture actually teaches about them. As someone seeking a Protestant church, I still need a way to determine which interpretation faithfully reflects God’s Word.

Who Decides What Counts as Essential?

This response raises another question: Who decides what counts as an essential doctrine in the first place?

Does Scripture provide a list of essential and non-essential doctrines, or do Christians create those categories themselves? If Christians create them, then I face another interpretive question before I can even decide which disagreements matter.

By what standard does someone classify one doctrine as essential and another as secondary? Does Scripture establish that standard, or does someone have to infer it? If someone must infer it, then I must rely on more than Scripture to determine which biblical teachings require agreement.

One final question troubles me. Doesn’t every doctrine that God inspired serve a purpose? If God included teachings on baptism, the Eucharist, and church government in Scripture, shouldn’t I seek to understand them correctly? If not, why did God include them in the first place?

As a seeker, I still face the same dilemma. Before I can decide which Protestant church to join, I must first determine not only what Scripture teaches but also who decides which of those teachings matter enough to require agreement.

The Question I Cannot Escape

After visiting churches, reading books, talking with pastors, praying, and studying Scripture, I realized that every proposed solution eventually brought me back to the same place. I had to decide which interpretation of Scripture made the most sense, determine which doctrines counted as essential, judge which pastor had interpreted Scripture correctly, and evaluate which scholar presented the strongest case. In the end, every road led back to my own judgment.

Yet that was the very problem I set out to solve.

As a seeker, I wasn’t trying to discover which Protestant church seemed right to me. I wanted to know which church actually taught what Scripture teaches. Until I found an objective way to answer that question, I saw no rational basis for choosing one Protestant church over another.

Final Thoughts… More Questions Than Answers

Ultimately, as the seeker in this thought experiment, I am left with more questions than answers.

If I had to choose a Protestant church, what objective method should I use?
How would I know that one church has interpreted Scripture faithfully while another has not?
If equally sincere, Bible-believing Christians reach contradictory conclusions, what principle allows me to identify the correct one?
If no such principle exists, how could I confidently know which Protestant church Christ intends me to join?

The best answer I imagine receiving from these churches is the encouragement to “do my best.” Yet that strikes me as an unsatisfying conclusion. Protestantism expresses great confidence that God has revealed His truth in Scripture and that Christians can rightly understand it. If that is so, I would expect a clearer way for a sincere seeker to identify the church that most faithfully teaches that truth.

Instead, the burden falls back on my own judgment. I must decide which interpretation of Scripture is correct, which doctrines count as essential, and which church most faithfully reflects biblical teaching. Yet that is exactly the problem I set out to solve. I began this search because I wanted to discover which Protestant church truly teaches what Scripture says—not because I wanted to become the final judge between competing interpretations.

What do you think?