Was The Ante-Nicene Church "Protestant" In Nature?

[Man_With_A_Plan]

When we read Christian history from a Christian perspective, we get the impression that, while there were minor differences and the occasional heresy, there was ultimately uniformity among churches. St. Irenaeus, for instance, in his Against Heresies describes how churches in all parts of the world maintain the same faith.

But is this an idyllic belief on the part of early church fathers? It was easy to maintain a sense of uniformity when the external elements of the faith--sacraments, holidays, scripture, etc--were more or less the same in all churches. But was there doctrinal uniformity, as well?

After having spent considerable time studying the Arian controversy, I've come to the unsettling conclusion that, while there was a common adherence to the most rudimentary beliefs, and generally universal similarity regarding visible aspects of faith, such as sacraments and holidays and apostolic succession, there was wild variation in theology and doctrine. In other words, the sort of doctrinal chaos we see among the Protestants today was the norm in the age prior to Nicaea. (The differences were nowhere near as striking or as numerous as Protestantism, but they were there.)

This shouldn't come as too much of a surprise. After all, a typical Christian community had at its center a single bishop, and while a few communities and their bishops may have had communication on a regular basis, large chunks of Christianity were isolated from one another. For many regions, communication was strenuous at best, and non-existent at worst.

In a typical Christian community, the bishop was the cental figure. He was the spritual father, the pope, the king, the shepherd, the mediator between you and God. He may have been one of the few in the community who was literate, and possibly the only one to give any considerable thought to theology. There was no "church government" that we have in Orthodoxy and Catholicism today. For the typical community, the bishop functioned as a sort of all-encompassing and complete authority, similar to what a typical Protestant minister or pastor today is. He was the final authority in all things. He was your autonomous leader, with no less dignity and authority than any other bishop on earth.

The ante-nicene Church wasn't Roman Catholic, but it sure as heck wasn't Eastern Orthodox, either.

I've noticed a lot of variation in early church fathers regarding the precise nature of Christ. Justin Martyr and Origen, while both trinitarians, held different views than trinitarians today do, and even different views from each other. Arius describes his beliefs as orthodox and considers trinitarians as heretics. Since there was really no authority above one's bishop (or perhaps a local collection of bishops together), there was no mechanism among the churches to say who was right. Nobody had yet conceived of an "ecumemical council," and so theological disputes were dealt with via a "agree to disagree" policy to keep the peace. They could maintain communion by "laying aside all differences," to quote St. Paul.

I recently stumbled upon a letter written by Constantine himself a year before Nicaea, in which he describes the deplorable state of the various "nations" of Christians and their various beliefs.

http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-17

(It's from a Protestant website, but that's only by coincidence. I don't advocate the views expressed by the website.)

Reading that letter and others like it afford us a rare glimpse into the fractured nature of ante-nicene Christianity and how much the Orthodox and Catholic Churches owe the concept of "doctrinal unity" to Constantine and his invention of the ecumenical council. No doubt it was a blessing to the church, but, at the same time, it was disheartening to see that the reality of early Christianity was not the happy communion we like to think it was. Looked at from the eyes of the Christians of the day, there was nothing "holy" about this new idea of a "world-wide synod." It was clearly just a means for Constantine to unify the various fractures into a same theology, as is evidenced in the letter I linked to. (The fact that only a fraction of bishops even cared to attend, and the fact that nobody cared to include bishops from *outside* of the empire, shows that the council was merely seen as a human-fix. Reverence for the ecumemical council would develop at a later time.)

Until I had embarked on my research, I was seriously considering becoming Orthodox. But now that I know that the early centuries of Christianity were basically a doctrinal free-for-all and nobody really cared as long as you held to the same rudimentary doctrines (Christ was crucified for our sin, the God of the OT is the same as the God of the NT, etc.), finer points of disagreement were either tolerated or ignored!

Think about it! Two bishops could be in communion and not even agree on the precise relation between Christ and the Father.

The second-century pagan philosopher Celsus wrote a lenghty critique of Christians and their doctrines. He was surprised to see so much difference between various groups and how they couldn't seem to agree on anything. In his words,

"Christians at first were few in number, and held the same opinions; but when they grew to be a great multitude, they were divided and separated, each wishing to have his own individual party: for this was their object from the beginning....being thus separated through their numbers, they confute one another, still having, so to speak, one name in common, if indeed they still retain it. And this is the only thing which they are yet ashamed to abandon, while other matters are determined in different ways by the various sects."

Granted, he may have been doing what atheists today do by lumping Orthodox and Catholics with all the Protestant denominations (treating orthodoxy and heresy as equal claimants to the Christian name, on other words), but I'm not too sure he was that naive. He wrote extensively on Christian doctrine and had even come into possession of some scriptures, so it may just be that Constantine and Celsus observe an unsettling truth: except for the most universal and rudimentary tenents of the Christian faith, there was no "orthodox" doctrine until the novelty of the ecumenical council was introduced and uniformity in belief was coerced. The early churches were a fractured group, held in unity more by the way they worshipped then what they believed.

 

[prodromos]

My understanding of how things progressed is that it was only when people started speculating beyond what was handed down that the Church as a body would carefully determine if it was within those bounds or whether it had departed from the orthodox faith. If it had departed then it was necessary to draw a line (clearly define what had been handed down with regards to the issue at hand) and make it understood why crossing that line took you away from the faith of the Apostles. Up until that line was drawn there would have been a lot more freedom of expression with regards to theology.
Take the various analogies presented in the past to explain or describe the Holy Trinity. Most of them are fine up to a point, but if followed to their logical ends can lead to views we now consider heresy, so most of them have now been ruled out.
On the other hand where there has been no controversy, no dogmatic statement has been made. The Orthodox Church has not made a dogmatic statement on which books are in the Old and New Testaments for example. There has been no need.

 

[Man_With_A_Plan]

I'm not so sure that the church as a government able to act like that even existed yet. When I read St. Ignatius of Antioch's letters, it's clear that the "Church" was just a loose coalition of communities that believed the same basic things. The late second century has the earliest noticeable traces of some form of "proto-governance," which rapidly developed in the third century and took its final form in the fourth with the legalization of Christianity, where the church was structured sinilarly to the Roman Empire's model.

Some Protestants (like Anglicans and certain Lutheran churches) have apostolic succession. For us today, the differences between Orthodoxy, Lutheranism and Anglicanism are too great for communion, but for St. Ignatius, I'm convinced that he would have seen the differences between those three as minor in comparison to what heresy he dealt with in his time. If a "Lutheran" or "Orthodox" or "Anglican" church has a valid bishop who believes that Jesus is the Christ and who believes that the bread and wine are the Flesh and Blood, then he would have had no problem with any of these three groups' otherwise "frivolous" differences. He might say to those three groups' bishops, "lay aside your differences," and leave it at that.

 

[CelticRebel]

When we read Christian history from a Christian perspective, we get the impression that, while there were minor differences and the occasional heresy, there was ultimately uniformity among churches. St. Irenaeus, for instance, in his Against Heresies describes how churches in all parts of the world maintain the same faith.

But is this an idyllic belief on the part of early church fathers? It was easy to maintain a sense of uniformity when the external elements of the faith--sacraments, holidays, scripture, etc--were more or less the same in all churches. But was there doctrinal uniformity, as well?

After having spent considerable time studying the Arian controversy, I've come to the unsettling conclusion that, while there was a common adherence to the most rudimentary beliefs, and generally universal similarity regarding visible aspects of faith, such as sacraments and holidays and apostolic succession, there was wild variation in theology and doctrine. In other words, the sort of doctrinal chaos we see among the Protestants today was the norm in the age prior to Nicaea. (The differences were nowhere near as striking or as numerous as Protestantism, but they were there.)

This shouldn't come as too much of a surprise. After all, a typical Christian community had at its center a single bishop, and while a few communities and their bishops may have had communication on a regular basis, large chunks of Christianity were isolated from one another. For many regions, communication was strenuous at best, and non-existent at worst.

In a typical Christian community, the bishop was the cental figure. He was the spritual father, the pope, the king, the shepherd, the mediator between you and God. He may have been one of the few in the community who was literate, and possibly the only one to give any considerable thought to theology. There was no "church government" that we have in Orthodoxy and Catholicism today. For the typical community, the bishop functioned as a sort of all-encompassing and complete authority, similar to what a typical Protestant minister or pastor today is. He was the final authority in all things. He was your autonomous leader, with no less dignity and authority than any other bishop on earth.

The ante-nicene Church wasn't Roman Catholic, but it sure as heck wasn't Eastern Orthodox, either.

I've noticed a lot of variation in early church fathers regarding the precise nature of Christ. Justin Martyr and Origen, while both trinitarians, held different views than trinitarians today do, and even different views from each other. Arius describes his beliefs as orthodox and considers trinitarians as heretics. Since there was really no authority above one's bishop (or perhaps a local collection of bishops together), there was no mechanism among the churches to say who was right. Nobody had yet conceived of an "ecumemical council," and so theological disputes were dealt with via a "agree to disagree" policy to keep the peace. They could maintain communion by "laying aside all differences," to quote St. Paul.

I recently stumbled upon a letter written by Constantine himself a year before Nicaea, in which he describes the deplorable state of the various "nations" of Christians and their various beliefs.

http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-17

(It's from a Protestant website, but that's only by coincidence. I don't advocate the views expressed by the website.)

Reading that letter and others like it afford us a rare glimpse into the fractured nature of ante-nicene Christianity and how much the Orthodox and Catholic Churches owe the concept of "doctrinal unity" to Constantine and his invention of the ecumenical council. No doubt it was a blessing to the church, but, at the same time, it was disheartening to see that the reality of early Christianity was not the happy communion we like to think it was. Looked at from the eyes of the Christians of the day, there was nothing "holy" about this new idea of a "world-wide synod." It was clearly just a means for Constantine to unify the various fractures into a same theology, as is evidenced in the letter I linked to. (The fact that only a fraction of bishops even cared to attend, and the fact that nobody cared to include bishops from *outside* of the empire, shows that the council was merely seen as a human-fix. Reverence for the ecumemical council would develop at a later time.)

Until I had embarked on my research, I was seriously considering becoming Orthodox. But now that I know that the early centuries of Christianity were basically a doctrinal free-for-all and nobody really cared as long as you held to the same rudimentary doctrines (Christ was crucified for our sin, the God of the OT is the same as the God of the NT, etc.), finer points of disagreement were either tolerated or ignored!

Think about it! Two bishops could be in communion and not even agree on the precise relation between Christ and the Father.

The second-century pagan philosopher Celsus wrote a lenghty critique of Christians and their doctrines. He was surprised to see so much difference between various groups and how they couldn't seem to agree on anything. In his words,

"Christians at first were few in number, and held the same opinions; but when they grew to be a great multitude, they were divided and separated, each wishing to have his own individual party: for this was their object from the beginning....being thus separated through their numbers, they confute one another, still having, so to speak, one name in common, if indeed they still retain it. And this is the only thing which they are yet ashamed to abandon, while other matters are determined in different ways by the various sects."

Granted, he may have been doing what atheists today do by lumping Orthodox and Catholics with all the Protestant denominations (treating orthodoxy and heresy as equal claimants to the Christian name, on other words), but I'm not too sure he was that naive. He wrote extensively on Christian doctrine and had even come into possession of some scriptures, so it may just be that Constantine and Celsus observe an unsettling truth: except for the most universal and rudimentary tenents of the Christian faith, there was no "orthodox" doctrine until the novelty of the ecumenical council was introduced and uniformity in belief was coerced. The early churches were a fractured group, held in unity more by the way they worshipped then what they believed.

I would say that you are correct in your analysis. And I don't view what Constantine did as a positive, either.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The early churches were a fractured group, held in unity more by the way they worshipped then what they believed.

but as you worship, so you believe. that is what St Vincent of Leirns or St Irenaeus of Lyons says. worship was, and still IS, the primary source of belief. it was not articulated clearly in the early days to be sure, but the earliest Christians did not care to articulate that stuff. they only did when there was a major heresy and they had to. and the first real huge heresy was Arianism.

 

[Man_With_A_Plan]

I have to disagree about Arians being objectively heretical. Arius and those who held similar views made up a significant chunk of the Christian world, and they, like all the various fractions, considered everyone else a heretic. Arians saw their beliefs as ancient and apostolic, as did the trinitarians.

I'm not trying to agree or disagree with Arius. I just want to raise the point that, prior to Constantine's meddling in Christian affairs, the only way to find orthodox doctrine was by appealing to (a) tradition and (b) universality. Regarding Arianism vs Trinitarianism, since the Apostolic Christian faith made no specific "judgment" on the nature of God/Jesus/Holy Spirit, it means that both views evolved at a later time and both were equally valid in terms of (a) and (b). Since that was the case, the best option would have been to simply ignore the issue. Both Arians and Trinitarians (and all the various in-between groups) called Jesus "Lord" and worshipped Him, and that was enough.

Constantine himself became a semi-Arian later in life (after Nicaea) and tried to reconcile Arius to the church. Constantine's son, when he ascended the throne, was completely Arian and tried to overrule his dad's Council of Nicaea with his own Arian council (twice, if I'm not mistaken). At one time, most bishops in the empire were Arian. Up until the coerced government intervention of Trinitarianism, Arianism was seen as a valid theological speculation. Constantine, in his letter (which I linked to in my OP), was basically saying, "why is any of this relevant? Why bicker over something so abstract? Just put aside your differences."

Can you imagine churches today saying that? Can you imagine how St. Paul might rebuke churches today for their "theological" division?

Do you ever notice how the "heresies" became finer and finer as time wore on? After having studied both Christian and secular books on first and second century church history, I've come to the conclusion that, for the earliest Christian churches, concepts like "excommunication" simply didn't exist. Nobody back then would have broken communion with each other except for the most grievous reasons, like if one party denied Christ in the Eucharist, or that the Resurrection hadn't occurred, or some other actual heresy. If Clement, or Polycarp, or Ignatius of Antioch were to hop into a time machine and visit the 21st century, they would be grieved by the causes of division in the Christian world. They would fail to understand why the "Eastern Orthodox" and "Oriental Orthodox" or "Anglicans" are separated over such speculative things. St. Paul would rebuke them for being so divisive.

There are so many churches claiming apostolic succession and finding all the reason in the world to remain separate from one another. If those three apostolic fathers were around today, they would not see the differences between "Anglican" or "Orthodox" or _(insert church name here)_ bishops, because the bishops all hold to the same faith in the risen Christ and celebrate the Lord's Supper as the real flesh and blood.

I've spent so many years trying to find the "true church," and only recently did Ignatius' words finally make sense:

"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the universal church."

That's the true church right there.

Ignatius didn't know about "councils." He didn't care that other bishops differed on precise speculative theological discussions that have absolutely no bearing on living for Christ. For Ignatius, the "fullness" of the "true church" is wherever a legitimately-ordained bishop exists and is celebrating the Eucharist with his people.

The Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Polish National Catholic Church, Independent Catholics, Old Catholics, the (some) Anglicans, (some) Lutherans, (some) Episcopalians... they and other groups all have bishops who can trace their ordination to the Apostles. So many of their differences are so meaningless. All these groups believe themselves to be correct and the others to be in some sort of error.

As an outsider, I see now that they all hold the same exact faith delivered once and for all.

And what is this faith?

St. Paul is believed by biblical scholars to quote at least parts of a very early Christian creed when he wrote:

"...the gospel of God, which he promised before through his prophets in the holy scriptures concerning his son who was descendant from the seed of David according to the flesh, having been designated the son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness by [his] resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord..."

and,

"By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory."

St. Ignatius:

"...that He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God according to the will and power of God; that He was truly born of a virgin, was baptized by John, in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him; and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed for us in His flesh. Of this fruit we are by His divinely-blessed passion, that He might set up a standard for all ages, through His resurrection, to all His holy and faithful followers, whether among Jews or Gentiles, in the one body of His Church."

This is the simple faith that is required to be "in communion" with the "universal church," which happens to be found wherever Jesus Christ through the Eucharist is found.

Christ didn't leave Apostles a "mechanism" with which to resolve theological disputes because such a mechanism wasn't necessary. How do I know this? Because, in John's Gospel, He prays, "that all of them may be one, Father, just as You are in Me and I am in You. May they also be in Us so that the world may believe that You have sent Me."

Hmm. I guess Jesus didn't think that theological disputes were grounds for division.

Except for the Roman Catholics and their claim of the papacy, I honestly believe that any Christian communities with real bishops can follow St. Paul's advice:

"I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions..."

"I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?... But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way? For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not being merely human? What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each ..."

"Eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."

"Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful.

"But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.

"May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Chris."

When, in 2,000 years, has Christianity been one? Never.

I now realize that the "true church" isn't necessarily any of the ones I named above. It's wherever the Eucharist is, and since the Eucharist is present in all those above, their differences are superficial and the result of pride.

The faith was delivered "once and for all." God doesn't care if you hold slightly different theories about the nature of Christ, or which calendar you follow, or what type of bread you use, or what precise theoretical Christological view you hold in your imagination, or even what color your shoelaces are.

It's a sin to be divided. I now realize that the universal church is present in an Orthodox church just as much as it is in a Catholic or Anglican church or anywhere there's a real bishop and a real congregation celebrating a real Eucharist. Everything else is unimportant in the end.

 

[ArmyMatt]

since the Apostolic Christian faith made no specific "judgment" on the nature of God/Jesus/Holy Spirit, it means that both views evolved at a later time and both were equally valid in terms of (a) and (b). Since that was the case, the best option would have been to simply ignore the issue. Both Arians and Trinitarians (and all the various in-between groups) called Jesus "Lord" and worshipped Him, and that was enough.

actually if you read the letters of Arius, this is not exactly the case. close but not exact. and the Trinitarians called Him God, which is what St Ignatius called Him. the argument defending Arius here is pretty weak.

Constantine himself became a semi-Arian later in life (after Nicaea) and tried to reconcile Arius to the church.

actually not true, he was baptized by St Sylvester, Pope of Rome and only reconciled Arius because he lied to St Constantine.

so are you asking us stuff, or are you trying to tell us the early Church was like the Protestants?

 

[CelticRebel]

The Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Polish National Catholic Church, Independent Catholics, Old Catholics, the (some) Anglicans, (some) Lutherans, (some) Episcopalians... they and other groups all have bishops who can trace their ordination to the Apostles. So many of their differences are so meaningless. All these groups believe themselves to be correct and the others to be in some sort of error.

I agree with much of your post and disagree significantly with at least the part above. In the NT, there were no bishops as a third order of ministry. A bishop, elder, pastor, overseer was one and the same office. That being true, no monarchial bishop can trace his ordination lines back to the apostles.

 

[Man_With_A_Plan]

actually if you read the letters of Arius, this is not exactly the case. close but not exact. and the Trinitarians called Him God, which is what St Ignatius called Him. the argument defending Arius here is pretty weak.



actually not true, he was baptized by St Sylvester, Pope of Rome and only reconciled Arius because he lied to St Constantine.

so are you asking us stuff, or are you trying to tell us the early Church was like the Protestants?

I'm not trying to tell anyone anything. I just wanted to see what people here thought. It seems like people on Christian boards get extremely defensive when I tell the less pious version of history. I'm just seeking the truth is all.

Everything I've ever read in my entire life about Constantine claims he was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia. I'll have to check out what sources claim it was Sylvester. I don't think I've ever heard of Constantine referred to as a saint, either. I'm guessing he's a saint in Orthodoxy?

 

[Man_With_A_Plan]

I agree with much of your post and disagree significantly with at least the part above. In the NT, there were no bishops as a third order of ministry. A bishop, elder, pastor, overseer was one and the same office. That being true, no monarchial bishop can trace his ordination lines back to the apostles.

Ignatius was writing shortly after the New Testament was written and to churches of great geographical distance from one another, and yet he acknowledges the bishop/priest/deacon structure. I find it hard to imagine that churches in both Rome and Asia Minor would suddenly and consistently fall into the same "error." The more likely scenario is that this three-fold ecclesiastical situation in the churches was there from the beginning. There's also a tradition that Ignatius knew the Apostle John. If so, then John seemed accepting of the way churches used bishops, priests and deacons.

Revelation was written in the 90s, shortly before Ignatius' letters, and in that book Christ doesn't seem to have a problem with the way those churches are set up.

I think it's the Protestants who like to believe that it wasn't the case, but all the evidence suggests that it is the case.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It seems like people on Christian boards get extremely defensive when I tell the less pious version of history. I'm just seeking the truth is all.

sorry if I came across as defensive (twas not my intent). but I think you are not approaching the Faith of the Fathers as they did. so you are looking at it through an academic and modern lens, which is not how an ancient person would have done.

Everything I've ever read in my entire life about Constantine claims he was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia. I'll have to check out what sources claim it was Sylvester. I don't think I've ever heard of Constantine referred to as a saint, either. I'm guessing he's a saint in Orthodoxy?

yes, he is a saint of our Church.

 

[ArmyMatt]

In the NT, there were no bishops as a third order of ministry. A bishop, elder, pastor, overseer was one and the same office.

yes, and the role of the bishop today is as an overseeing priest. the primary function of the bishop is as the priest. priests are an extension of that ministry. if they were the same order in all ways, they would not make the distinction of an elder and an overseer.

That being true, no monarchial bishop can trace his ordination lines back to the apostles.

if we defined our bishops like that, then yes, you would be correct. but we don't. our bishops are not monarchial

 

[Man_With_A_Plan]

I'm not trying to be arrogant with the stuff I say here. In fact, it took me a long time to accept the truth. The "true church" is found wherever the Eucharist is found, regardless of the name on the outsude of the building.

The problem with the Council of Nicaea is that Constantine's goal was to create unity among all the churches (there was no "mainstream" church), but what ended up happening was that one fraction happened to outnumber the others at the Council. Emperor Constantine, who wasn't even Christian yet, was more concerned about unity than anything else. He felt that appeasing the Christian God would be good for his empire, so he figured that, by creating peace among the churches, God would look favorably upon him. If more Arian bishops had shown up at Nicaea, Constantine would have enforced Arianism and made Trinitarianism illegal.

Christ didn't give the church the "ability to teach doctrine" because He didn't establish a "visible church government." The faith was delivered "once and for all." All that was necessary to believe was given at the beginning. Constantine created the "visible church," not Christ. Later, when the Nestorian schism happened, both sides were at fault for refusing to lay aside differences. Both sides were at fault during the Oriental Orthodox schism, too, along with every other schism in history (with the exception of the Roman Catholic papacy, which is a completely bizarre thing). I value all the church fathers, but the ones who lived prior to ecumenical councils are the ones who are worth looking at in terms of what Christianity is supposed to be.

I'm not saying that the church is "lost" or that "the gates of hell prevailed." I'm simply saying that the divisions separating the various churches with apostolic succession are artificial, man-made divisions. The "ecumenical council" is a novelty. Christ gave no such mechanism by which to "define doctrine," because He didn't care about "infallibly defining doctrine." He only prayed and begged the Father that all believers may be one.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Actually, you are pretty inaccurate at what happened at Nicaea. Most of the bishops were neither Arian, nor openly Trinitarian, and Constantine only maintained order. What you are saying is just not accurate to the minutes of the council.

And of course Christ established a visible Church. St Paul had to join the one Church via baptism even after he believed in Christ.

And the Great Comission proves that Christ did give the Church the ability to teach doctrine.

And you are not arrogant at all, just in error. What you are saying is not supported

 

[Man_With_A_Plan]

Actually, you are pretty inaccurate at what happened at Nicaea. Most of the bishops were neither Arian, nor openly Trinitarian, and Constantine only maintained order. What you are saying is just not accurate to the minutes of the council.

And of course Christ established a visible Church. St Paul had to join the one Church via baptism even after he believed in Christ.

And the Great Comission proves that Christ did give the Church the ability to teach doctrine.

And you are not arrogant at all, just in error. What you are saying is not supported

There are no minutes from Nicea, as far as I know.

The closest thing I can find to the "visible" church is St. Ignatius' definition. The fact there are at least a couple of dozen distinct bodies with apostolic succession all claiming to be the true visible church, and the fact that they can all make a compelling argument, sort of proves that there is no visible church, at least from where I'm standing.

The ancient churches had no way of "pronouncing dogma" until the ecumenical council was invented.

For me, as an inbaptized outsider, it seems as if St. Ignatius makes the most sense. I could enter into any community that has apostolic succession and I would become a member of the true church. I don't see why any one particular apostolic church has more of a claim over the others.

 

[Man_With_A_Plan]

unbaptized*

 

[prodromos]

unbaptized*

There is an option to edit your post

 

[civilwarbuff]

And of course Christ established a visible Church. St Paul had to join the one Church via baptism even after he believed in Christ.

I don't recall seeing that in scripture.....the baptism part that is....
The Great Commission
16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” Nothing about doctrine here....unless I am missing something or there is some deeper spiritual meaning I don't see.
I have always wondered about the some who doubted....who were they....and what happened to them?

 

[prodromos]

I don't recall seeing that in scripture.....the baptism part that is....

Acts 9:18

 

[civilwarbuff]

Acts 9:18

Time to go back and re-read Acts.....thank you my friend.