Well, I will believe in Rome. As Newman in essence said, to go back into history is to cease to be Protestant.
You will not find the doctrines you find in American Evangelical Protestantism in the early CHurch. In God’s providence, he chose to send his Son in the context of a Roman and Greek culture and it is in that context the development of orthodox Christian doctrine developed.
Do you think the Early Church, the Church Fathers and the Doctrines expressed at say the first 4 Councils [Nicea 325AD, Constantinopile 381AD, Ephesus 431AD and Chalcedon 451AD], who had the same NT books as you and I do [although the NT canon itself is a process of development and defining not really codified totally until the late 4th century] had a theology as it relates to Sacraments, Ecclesiology, soteriology consistent with the Catholic Church, and for that matter, Orthodoxy, or American Evangelical Protestantism?
You will note I did not mention Christology as I have no evidence, as of yet, that you embrace any of the numerous Trinitarian and Christological heresies of the early Church, Gnosticism, Modalism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, etc, etc.
So again, I am curious as to your answer as you stated you did some studying of Church History.
“Well, I will believe in Rome. As Newman in essence said, to go back into history is to cease to be Protestant.”
...Well, it doesn’t surprise me that Newman would say that. Unfortunately for him, it doesn’t work that way in practice.
...Now, the rest of what you wrote probably seems convincing to you, in the same way Romans here want to tell Protestants that Luther supported certain beliefs - as if I follow Luther, or must believe what he believed. I am certainly grateful to Luther for recovering the Gospel and opening the door for believers to study the Word and arrive at a complete understanding of all revelation. But I am not convinced about anything because Luther may have believed it.
...................
“You will not find the doctrines you find in American Evangelical Protestantism in the early CHurch.”
...Oh, sure. Not in the early church, if you mean hundreds of years out, after paganism crept in. In the Bible, yes. In the actual early church, yes. And let’s be frank, the NT Church did not have all the inspired writings to systematically examine, so there will be differences.
“Do you think the Early Church, the Church Fathers and the Doctrines expressed at say the first 4 Councils [Nicea 325AD, Constantinopile 381AD, Ephesus 431AD and Chalcedon 451AD], who had the same NT books as you and I do [although the NT canon itself is a process of development and defining not really codified totally until the late 4th century] had a theology as it relates to Sacraments, Ecclesiology, soteriology consistent with the Catholic Church, and for that matter, Orthodoxy, or American Evangelical Protestantism?”
...Your question presumes an answer that you prefer.
...A much better question is how could they arrive at a number of crucial decisions theologically, and yet accept paganism in many practices? Nature of man, I guess. They often went around killing those in opposition in earlier times, even though they got the Virgin Birth right. Why? Human nature I guess.
...Again, I don’t doubt that you are convinced these arguments you put forth are air-tight. But you are arguing within a box you prefer.
“You will note I did not mention Christology as I have no evidence, as of yet, that you embrace any of the numerous Trinitarian and Christological heresies of the early Church, Gnosticism, Modalism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, etc, etc.”
...You kill me with the arrogance of your post, but I’ll leave that to Him.
In the meantime, perhaps you might revisit the topic of this thread and explain why Catholics are vanishing.