[Double] Predestination and bondage of the will...but other member in your church don't have to share that, and still be whatever your church calls itself, right?
Churches which are explicitly Reformed have the power to "excommunicate" members who openly proclaim non-Reformed views
You still appear to believe that any Christian who is not Orthodox or Catholic belongs in the same group
I don't believe it, I know it. Because none of those groups is in either particualar Apostolic Church. That much is clear and couldn't be more clear. It's not a presumption; it's a fact: they are all outside the Church. Correct. That's why we have so many Protestant denominations. So, which one is the 'true' one? My homeowners' association has the 'power' to force members to pick only certain kind of a fence...
After that, you will be hard pressed to find significant differences in any way approaching the importance of the first
Protestant congregations consist of like-minded people, like political parties. They tolerate some degree of deviation from the 'official truth,' but the limits are set. Those who disagree go to a different assembly or start one of their own, just like a political party.
Every time I say you guys are all programmed to follow like robots, you all come out to say how free you are to believe in whatever you want on issues that haven't been ruled upon yet by the Magisterium/Consensus Patrum
No, FK, the reformed believe they are 'programmed' by God. We believe in free will. We are not programmed, we choose to put our trust in God's Church because God gave us the opportunity to do so and we accept it.
Naturally, since different people are at a different levels of spiritual maturity, they will have different views and conceptualizations; being human they will have some doubts even if they are already spiritually mature, and especially then, not so much as far as their faith is concerned, but doubt in themselves of being worthy of God's blessings.
This is precisely why no one must presume to be individually 'right' or demand others to follow his or her conclusions, but those of the 2,000-year old faith given to the Church beginning with the Apostles.
We are always keenly aware that we believe and worship in an imperfect manner, and that arrogating [self-]righteousness is the last thing on our free-to-do agenda. Our only reminder is to, after all has been said and done, to doubt onself first and the Church never.
Protestants on the other hand assume the right to interpet the Scripture no matter what level of spiritual growth they happen to be. It is, as you say, a 'relationship with Christ' that makes up Protestant religion. It's a personal religion based on one's own interpretation of some version of the Bible.
You have seen with your own eyes the consistency with which we post.
I have seen a dozen or so like-minded people of Reformed persuasion who pat each other on their backs. I have seen Lutherans and Anglicans whose posts resembled none of the Reformed-minded members' of this forum. I have seen Armenians who claim to be every way 'Reformed,' with whom the 'orthodox' Reformed violently disagree.
In case you forgot, there are some 30 thousand different Protestant denominations who share nothing in common but the basic elements: One God (all), Holy Bible (some), Holy Trinity (some), dual nature of Christ (some), Creed (some). And even in those areas where they do agree, they differ.
Christianity is about a relationship with Christ, period
Herein lies the rub, FK. By that simplistic definition, based on personal understandings and preferences, as one sees fit, anyone who calls on the name of Jesus is a Christian! The Mormons, the Trinity-denying Protestants, the Gnostics, the Arians, the Nestorians, and the list goes on.
Christ left His Church to the Apostles and the Apostles to their successors in an unbroken lineage and in faith once delievered and unchanged (some are closer, very close, i.e. High Anglicans and many Lutherans; others couldn't be farther, but all are outside the Church, by their own choice).
I don't believe it, I know it. Because none of those groups is in either particular Apostolic Church. That much is clear and couldn't be more clear. It's not a presumption; it's a fact: they are all outside the Church
This should be attached to the last paragraph. I have no clue how it got pasted where it is. Sorry.
Just for the record, unless I specify differently in the post, the bulk of my posts refer to the Reformation or Protestants as characterized by some form of belief in Bible Alone, Faith Alone, and individual salvation preceding sanctification (goes by Once Saved - Always Saved, or Perseverance of the Saints) as these are your defining heresies. The additional heresy of Predestination of the Reprobate is indeed found in a subgroup only.
Sure. I share the Lord's Supper with Arminians all the time. Are you saying that you will not take Communion with those with whom you have less disagreement than this? What would Jesus say? :)
Correct. That's why we have so many Protestant denominations. So, which one is the 'true' one?
I wouldn't expect any one denomination to have everything exactly correct. Neither would I expect any one Apostolic faith to have everything correct. By definition, they cannot.
Protestant congregations consist of like-minded people, like political parties. They tolerate some degree of deviation from the 'official truth,' but the limits are set. Those who disagree go to a different assembly or start one of their own, just like a political party.
What is the significance of this? People leave your church to join other faiths, and the same happens in my church. So what? You all accept deviation from even the most popular view on all things that haven't been officially ruled upon. While we do have some, we just don't have official rulings to the degree that you do. Again, so what? Whether there are 3 or 30 legitimate Protestant denominations I wouldn't associate with, that says nothing about the legitimacy of mine in terms of truth.
This is precisely why no one must presume to be individually 'right' or demand others to follow his or her conclusions, but those of the 2,000-year old faith given to the Church beginning with the Apostles.
So you don't demand that I follow your conclusions, but you do demand that I follow the conclusions of other fallible men coming after the Apostles whom you trust? I see. :) I think I'm following the Apostles just fine. I trust what their words say. I trust less what others SAY their words say, especially when those two are as far apart as they are in Apostolic faiths. I still do not believe the Bible was written in secret code. Rather, it is a timeless document.
Protestants on the other hand assume the right to interpret the Scripture no matter what level of spiritual growth they happen to be. It is, as you say, a 'relationship with Christ' that makes up Protestant religion. It's a personal religion based on one's own interpretation of some version of the Bible.
True rights only come from God. The Bible is clear that the Spirit is a comforter to all Christians and will teach "all things". That can reasonably include interpretation. It doesn't surprise me at all that some Christians in power would say that the Spirit only is allowed to speak to them.
In case you forgot, there are some 30 thousand different Protestant denominations who share nothing in common but the basic elements: One God (all), Holy Bible (some), Holy Trinity (some), dual nature of Christ (some), Creed (some). And even in those areas where they do agree, they differ.
The latest one on this thread I heard was 40,000, so you are apparently behind the times. :) Why not just say there are an even 10 million different kinds? It would be equally as true, and help your point just as much.
FK: "Christianity is about a relationship with Christ, period."
Herein lies the rub, FK. By that simplistic definition, based on personal understandings and preferences, as one sees fit, anyone who calls on the name of Jesus is a Christian! The Mormons, the Trinity-denying Protestants, the Gnostics, the Arians, the Nestorians, and the list goes on.
I clearly implied a true relationship with Christ, not just "any" made-up relationship. That this didn't occur to you leads me to believe that you do not understand the concept of a direct relationship with Christ in any way similar to the way I understand it. I would guess that the reason for this is that your real relationship in faith is really much closer to the men of the Church than it is with Christ directly. This would explain a multitude of differences between us.