Which Branch of Christianity is Closest to Original Early Church?

[Root of Jesse]

The one closest to the original would be liturgical but not overly showy, believe scripture to be our only sure guide, have clergy and sacraments, but not try to define all the things of God that we weren't given by him to know.

In short, it's the CofE or one of its close relatives such as the the Free Church of England or the Methodist church.

Why should Scriputre be our only sure guide? Who says so? It's true, the Bible shows us liturgical worship, and Scripture is certainly the most important part of that part of the liturgy (we don't read the Early Church Fathers during that part of the liturgy), but we get meaning from the body of Sacred Tradition...

Of course, you're going to say that the CofE is the oldest Christian Church, but you still haven't proven that...we have proof that the Catholic Church is, and that Anglicanism stems from that. Just ask Henry VIII.

 

[Root of Jesse]

This same basic OP question was beat to death in the prior thread named “Which denomination today is closest to 1st Century Christianity”. (That thread was closed because the posting became uncivil.)

Though I am not tempted to believe that the oldest schismatics today are “the original” Christianity, still, I do believe the various “old” christianities tend to have many wonderful historic echo’s and doctrinal “debri” from early christian themes. I also think a study of the oldest schisms from rome, Africa, “Byzantium”, etc, are wonderful sources for historians trying to understand HOW certain doctrines were created, changed and how some were lost.



1) A Loss of prophetic leadership

I do not think that doctrinal accretions and evolutionary changes to the earliest doctrines was completely unavoidable. For example, once the last authentic apostle, John the revelator, died, then, all congregations such as Antioch, Rome, Jerusalem, Galatia, ephesus (and others not mentioned in NT texts...) were in the position of having no living source of apostolic authority nor prophetic revelatory guidance such authentic leaders [αποστολοι, etc.] had provided in the fledgling Jesus movement.



2) Early Doctrinal Immaturity of the Jesus Movement

Once the early congregations were "on their own" to make their own way as best they could without revelatory leadership it was inevitable that all would tend to stray in differing doctrinal directions.

Origen pointed out that the Christianity of his age had not yet decided whether God the Father had a physical body or not. Such a doctrinal “immaturity” was a difficult situation since many other types of doctrinal details were not spelled out for the christian movement which was coming under increasing pressure for answers to such questions from honest investigators and their antagonists alike.



3) Christianity attempting to better define itself

This lack of answers to simple doctrinal questions led to many early arguments and to a proliferation of multiple theories and further schisms were not unexpected. The ancient arguments over doctrines often reminds me of the very, very similar arguments we all see in modern religious and philosophical forums.



[FONT=&quot]Clearly[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]actzrr[/FONT]

The first problem here is that Jesus said that his Church would last to the end of the age, when He would return. We already know, from Paul's letter to Timothy, that Jesus wanted the apostles to appoint successors, who would carry on the same faith, and be guided from error by the Holy Spirit.

So, the death of John the Apostle did not signal chaos in Christianity, the way the death of Mohammed did to Islam.

Since this premise is incorrect, the rest follows as incorrect.

 

[Albion]

Why should Scriputre be our only sure guide?

Because we have reason to stand on it and none to supplement it with astrology, tea-leaf reading, studying the entrails of slaughtered animals, the decrees of the chief priests, legends and myths...in short anything else.

Who says so?

The Bible says so in many places.

Of course, you're going to say that the CofE is the oldest Christian Church, but you still haven't proven that

Well, you make many historical claims for the Roman Church and haven't proven any of them, so it's whatever persuades each of us. However, there's quite a lot of evidence about founding of the Church in Britain, so this is not some odd theory. It was attested to by five Roman Catholic councils, so I really think you should be accepting as usual to whatever the RCC says. And the founding of the church in Britain was even featured prominently during the opening ceremonies of the recent Olympic games before a worldwide audience. Did you catch any of that?

 

[RisingSpirit]

.... We already know, from Paul's letter to Timothy, that Jesus wanted the apostles to appoint successors, who would carry on the same faith, and be guided from error by the Holy Spirit.

....

Who is we and what make Catholicism error free guided by the Holy Spirit?

I believe WE , the Elects, have tested the spirits and found them to be in error.

The so called offspring's of the original churches are the real churches while the false church had lost it's touch a very, very long time ago.

As a successor, I lay my hand on the next Elect and make them successors. No Obama birth certificate required. It is free to all meaning that ALL only means the Saved, the Christians or the Elects. The Sheep not the goats.

 

[RisingSpirit]

obviously you do not know what your talking about.

Rather than fall for the false tales of decisionism, I discovered what I'm talking about. I had the gift of faith all along as if I never accepted it. It was already there just as God said. He tells us the He, Alone, did the choosing, not man. He called and N_O_N_E answered. So before time, God chose the Elects according to His Own Pleasure. That means His Own. Really! God did that alone and whenever He saw fit and not at l based on what man would do alone by himself. NONE means none. That makes Total Depravity ring true.

Good luck on saving yourself. Follow your own dreams.

 

[woodpecker]

Rather than fall for the false tales of decisionism, I discovered what I'm talking about. I had the gift of faith all along as if I never accepted it. It was already there just as God said. He tells us the He, Alone, did the choosing, not man. He called and N_O_N_E answered. So before time, God chose the Elects according to His Own Pleasure. That means His Own. Really! God did that alone and whenever He saw fit and not at l based on what man would do alone by himself. NONE means none. That makes Total Depravity ring true.

Good luck on saving yourself. Follow your own dreams.

God chose all the world to die for and save, not just you and few others..

He has given us free will to choose to follow Him or not.

None will have an excuse when they meet Jesus on the day of judgment. The whole creation is evidence to a God.

You did not have the gift of faith until God gave it to you, at the time of hearing the Good News. You had the knowledge of God that Paul speaks of in Romans in your heart, the Law written on your heart.

When the Gospel is impressed on your heart, you can say yes or no to it. Jesus will not drag a person to heaven if they do not want to be with him.

 

[Albion]

God chose all the world to die for and save, not just you and few others..

He has given us free will to choose to follow Him or not.

Well, we don't actually know that. But if you stipulate that it's so, your argument will naturally seem right.

When the Gospel is impressed on your heart, you can say yes or no to it. Jesus will not drag a person to heaven if they do not want to be with him.

Is that how you'd like it to be? And by the way, never have you heard any Christian who believes in election telling you that Jesus WILL drag someone to heaven who doesn't want to go. Obviously, if someone does not want God, he's not going be one of the elect.

 

[RisingSpirit]

God chose all the world to die for and save, not just you and few others..

...

Wonderful ! whew I thought somebody was going to Hell. Great! Now EVERYONE will be saved and go to Heaven since Jesus died for all.

Don't be silly, Read John Calvin's and Martian Luther's and Jonathan Edwards works and you'll discover that the Bible claims that at least one single man of all the history of this planet Earth will go to hell. If at least one goes to Hell, He didn't die for all.


But thats great news that NO ONE will go to Hell according to you.

NONE called, None answered and NONE goes to Hell anyway.

Thats fishy man made theology.

 

[woodpecker]

Wonderful ! whew I thought somebody was going to Hell. Great! Now EVERYONE will be saved and go to Heaven since Jesus died for all.

Don't be silly, Read John Calvin's and Martian Luther's and Jonathan Edwards works and you'll discover that the Bible claims that at least one single man of all the history of this planet Earth will go to hell. If at least one goes to Hell, He didn't die for all.


But thats great news that NO ONE will go to Hell according to you.

NONE called, None answered and NONE goes to Hell anyway.

Thats fishy man made theology.

Calvin and Edwards are wrong in their theology on "election"

and I never claimed all are saved.

Jesus Himself said "“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)

where did I claim no one would go to hell?

you have a strange way of interpreting someones reply.

 

[woodpecker]

Well, we don't actually know that. But if you stipulate that it's so, your argument will naturally seem right.


Is that how you'd like it to be? And by the way, never have you heard any Christian who believes in election telling you that Jesus WILL drag someone to heaven who doesn't want to go. Obviously, if someone does not want God, he's not going be one of the elect.

you make no sense at all.

 

[Knee V]

you make no sense at all.

Could you be more specific as to what you thought made no sense? I only ask because, although I may not agree with all of his conclusions, I generally tend to find his posts to be articulate enough to follow, including this one.

 

[Albion]

you make no sense at all.

Very well, I'll try again.

1) You begin by stating that predestination isn't real. Then you assume that you've proven that it isn't...because you already said so.

2) Then you said that you don't believe God will drag anyone into heaven. We don't think he will either.

Thererfore, you have given us no reason to disbelieve in Election other than 1) you don't believe in it and 2) it would be an illogical belief IF we believed something about it that we don't believe.

 

[Unix]

No, not me. I'm not a member of any denomination. I'm closest to the RCC and Anabaptism.
I'm studying a bit about the teachings of the RCC right now, and I'm going to study Anabaptism after having done first Gk (2 semesters) and then 2 semesters theology. (To start studying Anabaptism You first have to study 2 semesters of theology.)
I'm also a bit interested in some of the Gnosticism I find on CF.
Unfortunately we don't seem to have an Anabaptist Church over here?!

Obviously, everyone will reply "my denomination."

On the OP q: none of the denominations I've seen are.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Because we have reason to stand on it and none to supplement it with astrology, tea-leaf reading, studying the entrails of slaughtered animals, the decrees of the chief priests, legends and myths...in short anything else.

And yet most Protestant denominations can't agree on some of the simplest things in the Bible. Besides, who mentioned any of those things, unless you just want to be a toad? We know that those closest to Jesus and his ordained ministers would have a lot to say about what was meant by what was taught, especially realizing that it took 40 years for anyone to write down anything.

The Bible says so in many places.

The Bible never says that it is the sole authority. It does say it is useful.

Well, you make many historical claims for the Roman Church and haven't proven any of them, so it's whatever persuades each of us. However, there's quite a lot of evidence about founding of the Church in Britain, so this is not some odd theory. It was attested to by five Roman Catholic councils, so I really think you should be accepting as usual to whatever the RCC says. And the founding of the church in Britain was even featured prominently during the opening ceremonies of the recent Olympic games before a worldwide audience. Did you catch any of that?

I, and many others with more knowledge than I, have proven them. Regarding the Church of England, not as a separate entity. There was certainly apostolic activity in the Isles as the Catholic Church spread. It is the oldest Christian church in England. And I'm not disputing your claim to apostolicity. But it was the Catholic Church in England until Henry wanted a divorce, then it became the Church of England. Regardless of some boring show, no, I gave up on that about 20 minutes in. It was, frankly, boring. But if you believe that, I guess you'll begin believeing in some postage-stamp sized unattributable fragment that says or might say that some Jesus somewhere in the mists of time was married...

Here's the dispute I have with you. I say the Church of England existed as part of the Catholic Church from its inception, and veered off in the 1500's. You say it was never part of the Catholic Church.

 

[OzSpen]

Hello all.

I'm very new to Christian history or anything outside the Anglican Church really. I was just wondering what modern day denomination, in your opinion, is closest to the early Christians in terms of what they believed and how they worshipped. I know a lot of denominations, including my own, claim to be Apostolic but some of these are very different indeed.

Firstly, there were no Christian denominations in the early Christian church, so to pick a denomination is hardly a viable option.

However, this is what we do know happened in the early church at Corinth:

What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up (1 Cor. 14:26 NIV).

Therefore, any Christian group that promotes the possibility of every Christian participating when the church gathers, to my understanding, is closest to what the first churches experience. My search for this kind of church does not take me to denominations. The places where I have seen it happen are in house/cell churches. In my part of the world, denominations are not promoters of house churches. They tend to be independent groups.

This may sound controversial, but I see the house church as closest in function to the biblical norm.

Oz

 

[CGL1023]

Hello all.

I'm very new to Christian history or anything outside the Anglican Church really. I was just wondering what modern day denomination, in your opinion, is closest to the early Christians in terms of what they believed and how they worshipped. I know a lot of denominations, including my own, claim to be Apostolic but some of these are very different indeed.

God faithfully transmitted His Word to we humans and He knew what would happen down thru the ages. There is no mention of a favored denomination in the Word. Humans are bound to be divided on the issue of correct doctrine because that doctrine must be solid enough to get a person to heaven and empower them in this life. God could easily have specified a denomination to be followed in the Christian era, but did not. The one advantage to the current denominational confusion is that people are required to study the Word diligently as the only way to avoid the inevitable false doctrine.

To answer your question, I don't know the name of the denomination you seek. I would not trust any denomination, without diligent bible study. The simple reason is that there is only one truth and there may be more than 500 denominations.

 

[OzSpen]

God faithfully transmitted His Word to we humans and He knew what would happen down thru the ages. There is no mention of a favored denomination in the Word. Humans are bound to be divided on the issue of correct doctrine because that doctrine must be solid enough to get a person to heaven and empower them in this life. God could easily have specified a denomination to be followed in the Christian era, but did not. The one advantage to the current denominational confusion is that people are required to study the Word diligently as the only way to avoid the inevitable false doctrine.

To answer your question, I don't know the name of the denomination you seek. I would not trust any denomination, without diligent bible study. The simple reason is that there is only one truth and there may be more than 500 denominations.

According to Christianity Today, your estimate of "more than 500 denominations" is somewhat on the too-low side. CT's research indicates about 41,000 denominations. See HERE.

Oz

 

[Albion]

According to Christianity Today, your estimate of "more than 500 denominations" is somewhat on the too-low side. CT's research indicates about 41,000 denominations. See HERE.

Oz

As has been pointed out many times here by various posters, that figure is grossly overstated. However, this link you gave does at least hint at that fact...if the reader looks closely. It no doubt is true that 500 is too low a figure, but it may be that the real number is much, much lower than 41,000, perhaps only two or three times the 500.

 

[OzSpen]

As has been pointed out many times here by various posters, that figure is grossly overstated. However, this link you gave does at least hint at that fact...if the reader looks closely. It no doubt is true that 500 is too low a figure, but it may be that the real number is much, much lower than 41,000, perhaps only two or three times the 500.

What evidence do you have for the supposed 1000-1500 denominations as opposed to the 41,000 estimate in the CT article?

Why don't you take a read of 'The facts and stats on 33,000 denominations' from David Barrett's research. Barrett is a serious researcher and this link provides links to some of these denominations worldwide.

Oz

 

[Albion]

What evidence do you have for the supposed 1000-1500 denominations as opposed to the 41,000 estimate in the CT article?

Reading and study. There are a number of other compilations like the one you cited, you know.

Do you mean, "Why is the 41,000 estimate--and David Barnett's figures--far too high (as I pointed out)? Although it's been discussed many times on CF, I'd go over the rudiments of it again, if you want.