You guys have been split from each other for 500 years, you all claim the Holy Spirit and you can't agree on squat.
Second of all, on the supposed "deformation" of the ancient Church. You guys teach Church history by launching straight from Acts and quickly scurrying to the 16th century. The reason why is because *you can't find a Protestant church* in that 1500 year period. There isn't ONE Church, ONE author, ONE movement you can point to throughout all that time that is fully and completely Protestant.
I'll take my Christianity as it emerged from Christ and the Apostles, as it was taught by the great Fathers and Doctors, and as lived in the lives of the saints, not a false Christianity cobbled together by degenerate men who were unfaithful to their vows and their wives.
Why do you suppose Christ declared in Mark 13: 22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.
Mind you, not one Word of the so called ‘New Testament’ had yet been placed on plant fibers or animal skins, when Christ declared He had already foretold us all things. Which Church teaches what Christ taught? By the way, Paul says the ‘saints’ or set aside, chosen, election took place before the ‘foundation of the world’, or as accurately translated before the casting down/overthrow of the devil... Pronouncing somebody a ‘saint’ was NOT left up to flesh man, it has already been declared.
You may wish to read Irenaeus Against Heresies, especially book 3. Irenaeus states; "When, however, they [sic: heretics} are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn around and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delievered by means of written documents, but vivd voce:...But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, ...
Irenaeus main point in refuting heresy was the scriptures alone and he defines "tradition" based upon what the apostles taught. If people deviate from these to points by adding or subtracting from what was written and taught, they the have fallen into heresy.
Oh?
You guys TOTALLY ignore the 15th chapter of ACTS and are REALLY silent on the CORRUPT Catholic churches found in Revelation chapters 1-3.
Get off your high horse and clean your OWN stable!
There are several different ancient Churches currently not in communion with each other.
I think you misunderstood my charge, which was not that of ancient Churches currently not in communion with each other, but of Rome in particular not being in communion with the NT church, as described in the link, by the grace of God who gives light.
But note that you have based your argument for authenticity unity, and thus it is one that hill that you must die. The reality is that comprehensive doctrinal unity was ever a goal not realized, but the prima NT church was basically of "one heart and one soul" (Acts 4:32) under such manifest apostles, (2Co. 6:4-10) that we sadly do not see today, but who established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, in dissent from the historical magisterium, and contrary to Rome. And whose claim of unity is specious, as will be described, while it is the basis for unity that must be the issue.
They are the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches, and the Oriental Churches. We have been divided for at least a thousand years. We have our differences, certainly. But we all agree 97% in our doctrines, and the disagreements are so slight you need a theology degree to even explain them.
Wrong, even as btwn the EOs and Rome.. For one, rejecting Papocentrism, of a hierarch of Rome with universal jurisdiction is a fundamental disagreement which you cannot dismiss as "slight."
Behind all the photo-op hugs and kisses btwn leaders are substantial differences that prevent reconciliation even in this age of doctrinal laxity, with such EO conclusions as,
On the other hand, Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development."
Consequently, Roman Catholicism, pictures its theology as growing in stages, to higher and more clearly defined levels of knowledge. The teachings of the Fathers, as important as they are, belong to a stage or level below the theology of the Latin Middle Ages (Scholasticism), and that theology lower than the new ideas which have come after it, such as Vatican II. - http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html
Even more damning,
Vladimir Lossky, a noted modern Eastern Orthodox theologian, argues the difference in East and West is due to the Roman Catholic Church's use of pagan metaphysical philosophy (and its outgrowth, scholasticism) rather than the mystical, actual experience of God called theoria, to validate the theological dogmas of Roman Catholic Christianity. For this reason, Lossky argues that the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics have become "different men".[18] Other Eastern Orthodox theologians such as John Romanides[19] and Metropolitan Hierotheos[20][21] say the same. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox__Roman_Catholic_theological_differences
Orthodoxy is not simply an alternative ecclesiastical structure to the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church presents a fundamentally different approach to theology, because She possesses a fundamentally different experience of Christ and life in Him. To put it bluntly, she knows a different Christ from that of the Roman Catholic Church.” — Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997;
Yet both stand in fundamental contradiction to the NT church.
You guys have been split from each other for 500 years, you all claim the Holy Spirit and you can't agree on squat.
False, for while in Orthodoxy and R. Catholicism both are contending for particular churches, both asserting to be the one true, "you guys" relies on a spurious broadbrush, so wide that you could fly a Unitarian Scientology,.Swedenborgian Mormon 747 thru it, as if anything apart from Rome befits the name Protestantism .
However, a valid comparison would be btwn the most fundamental difference, that of Scripture being the supreme authority as the only wholly inspired substantive body of Divine Truth by which the validity of Truth claims are ascertained (which eliminates both liberal churches, as well as cults), and Catholicism, in which leadership is effectively the supreme authority, based on Tradition, Scripture and history, since they only authoritatively consist of and mean what the magisterium says.
Under which, besides E) vs Rome divisions, both claiming to be faithful to Tradition, unity within Roman Catholics is limited and largely on paper.
For Scripturally the evidence of what one believes consists of what they do and effectually produce, (Ja. 2:18; Mt. 7:20) and in reality , unlike the basic "one heart and one soul" of the prima NT church, (Acts 4:32 - if not in comprehensive doctrinal unity), Catholicism consists of a mass of variegated beliefs among both prelates and lay people, all of whom Rome treats as member in life and in death, including manifest public figures. Which manifests what she really beliefs, which is most basically that being joined to her, as liberally evident, is the unity that matters, with even nominal assent to leadership being acceptable .
Nor can you dismiss liberal RCs as self excommunicated latæ sententiæ when Rome treats and calls them otherwise. They are your brethren and you must own them, and can hardly expect that conservative evangelical should join your amalgamation, and thus disobey Scripture which requires us to leave such. (2Co. 14-18)
And under the model of leadership being supreme, then when it goes South, then so do those who follow such, unless they dissent, which results in more division in the interest of fidelity to teachings of past leadership. For while claiming to better define (interpret) Tradition, there is such apparent contrasts that you have formal sects and schisms based on differences btwn past and modern teaching. Some of us here just finished(?) a 1500+ post debate with one.
Rather then official teaching itself producing coveted unity, the opposite is seen. As one poster wryly said, The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html
In contrast,while lacking a central government, those who most strongly hold to Scripture as being the literal (versus liberal understanding) word of God yet testify to being the most unified in basic beliefs, in contrast to those Rome has as members.
Thus liberals fear evangelicals far more then Catholics, and it is the practical level that matters. You can only wish Catholics were as conservative.
Therefore if your argument is that unity equates to or is essential for authenticity then you must see to your own house, its reality, and not try to bluff us with propaganda about unchanging doctrine, which itself is subject to different Catholic interpretations.
However,
Second of all, on the supposed "deformation" of the ancient Church. You guys teach Church history by launching straight from Acts and quickly scurrying to the 16th century.
And why not examine Church history by launching straight from Acts, seeing that is where the only wholly inspired record of the NT church begins, and which, thru Revelation, shows us how they understood the gospels?
And which reveals the progressive contrast deformation of the NT church, which continues and did not end in the 16th century, but which saw the imperfect Reformation as a result of an recalcitrant Rome.
The reason why is because *you can't find a Protestant church* in that 1500 year period. There isn't ONE Church, ONE author, ONE movement you can point to throughout all that time that is fully and completely Protestant.
Thank God, considering what RCs include under "Protestant." However, the NT church actually began with common souls rightly discerning both men and writings as being of God, based on Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, in dissent from the historical magisterium,
And while even the best today comes short of the prima NT church, what we have within Protestantism are churches that come closest to the NT church of Acts (if lacking in a central magisterium of manifest Biblical apostles, etc.), while there isn't ONE Catholic Church you can point to throughout all that 1500 year period, nor since, that does not stand in fundamental and substantial contrast to the NT church.
I'll take my Christianity as it emerged from Christ and the Apostles, as it was taught by the great Fathers and Doctors, and as lived in the lives of the saints,
Which is a mere propagandistic question-begging assertion, as what you take as "emerged from Christ and the Apostles" was manifestly not what was taught by the great Fathers and Doctors as regards Roman distinctives.
For what the NT church in Scripture did NOT manifestly profess/teach practice were such things as:
• Praying to created beings in Heaven , which is utterly unseen in Scripture despite prayer being so basic a practice that the Holy Spirit inspired the recording of approx. 200 prayers by believers. Only pagans prayed to someone else!
• That the act of baptism itself renders souls formally justified by their own holiness so that they would directly enter Heaven i they died at the time of the baptism, but with the same (as practically imperfect) later usually having to endure postmortem purifying torments in order to become good enough (and atone for venial sins) to enter Heaven, and making offerings and prayers in order to obtain early release from this unScriptural RC purgatory.
• That believers were separated into two classes, one formally called "saints," the latter being the only believers who directly go to Heaven at death, contrary to Scripture. (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17)
• Ordaining a separate class of believers distinctively titled "priests ," whose primary active function was conducting the Lord's supper and offering up "real" flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin.
• That the Catholic Eucharist was the paramount, supreme prevalent practice in the life of the church, the "source and summit of the Christian life," in which "our redemption is accomplished," around which all else basically revolved.
•That presbuteros (senior/elder) and episkopos (superintendent/overseer) denoted two separate classes .
• That celibacy was a requirement for clergy .
• Directing the church to look to Peter as the first of a line of supreme infallible popes reigning over the churches from Rome, whom they were especially enjoined to honor and obey.
• That the magisterial office possessed ensured magisterial infallibility (thereby infallibly declaring that she is infallible), enabling them to even claim to essentially "remember" an extraScriptural event which lacks even early historical testimony. , and was opposed by RC scholars themselves the world over as being apostolic tradition.
• Choosing apostolic successors (or preparations for it) as was done for Judas (n order to maintain the original number of 12: Rv. 21:14) by casting lots, (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff; cf. Prov. 16:33; Leviticus 16:5,8,9-10,15-16,29-30) despite the vacancy left by the martyrdom of the apostle James. (Acts 12:1,2)
More to see by God's grace.
not a false Christianity cobbled together by degenerate men who were unfaithful to their vows and their wives.
Who knows you this refers to, but it does not refer to a cobbled Christianity i defend, but such men pertain to some of your popes and prelates in your cobbled Christianity in contrast with the NT church, which as said, among other things mentioned, did not basically require clerical celibacy which a false Christianity enjoins, and instead being married was the normative state, even among apostles, and who taught celibacy being a gift, (1Co. 7:7) and certainly did not presume pastors in general would have it.
However, The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit, (Psalms 34:18) and as the Truth of the gospel has been and is yet present among the trappings of Catholicism, then the body of Christ continued thru the dark ages of her reign, and there are a few (relatively) simple humble souls that are somewhat part of it today, by God's grace. May you become one.