Which Branch of Christianity is Closest to Original Early Church?

[Albion]

Who is closest to resembling the biblical church? The One Church that can trace it's lineage directly back to Jesus and His Apostles.[ Eph.2:19 ].
Jesus founded only an Apostolic Church, ''only''.All other churches are man-made.

If that is your standard, what do you do with the Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Arminian, Oriental Orthodox, Old Catholic, and some others who also can trace their bishops in an unbroken line back to one or another of the Apostles?

 

[Root of Jesse]

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

We, as the Church Jesus gave all authority to.

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

By what authority do you say this???

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.

And yet Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would protect His Church from error, and that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against it...

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.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The RCC is much too liberal and wordly for my taste.

That would be a personal opinion, and a bow to your person. Jesus demanded obedience.

 

[Root of Jesse]

If that is your standard, what do you do with the Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Arminian, Oriental Orthodox, Old Catholic, and some others who also can trace their bishops in an unbroken line back to one or another of the Apostles?

What would you like to do with them?

 

[SilenceInMotion]

The RCC is much too liberal and wordly for my taste.

What planet are you from?

You must be confusing Roman Catholic for Anglicanism

 

[lismore]

What planet are you from?

You must be confusing Roman Catholic for Anglicanism

For example:

Catholic Church and evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"... new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis."
— John Paul II, 1996

"New findings" could lead the RCC anywhere in terms of belief.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

For example:

Catholic Church and evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"... new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis."
— John Paul II, 1996

"New findings" could lead the RCC anywhere in terms of belief.

The Church said not to take Genesis literally as soon as Darwin came around in the 1800's.
It said that, and then continued on without so much as a worry or care because it's a non-issue.
People throughout history, including Augustine, made assessments of the age of the Earth according to the Bible, but it never existed that it *had to be the case*. Not until sometime in the 20th century, when Protestants decided it should be an issue.

There is nothing liberal about being honest, unless it is meaning to say liberation of the mind. *the truth will set you free*
The Bible better concludes evolution then it does YECism:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7718451/

 

[Albion]

Good catch. The reasoning is worse than strange, it is absent. This is intentional. The facts involved are unpopular and while I feel the OP's question (once noticed) necessitates an answer, I'm trying to take a minimalist approach so as to not provoke much discussion. I do not have unlimited resources to commit to responses, and there are very many Christians. All of whom want the answer to be "their" denomination, and many of whom might be prepared to have long debates on the topic.

I am attempting to give a sincere answer to a worthwhile yet sensitive question, without provoking controversy.

I respect your apparent desire to understand my position, and thank you for expressing it well. However, for you to have that understanding to any significant depth, we would need to discuss how the word "Christian" is defined along with the history and significance thereof, since it is key in the OP's question. I can't guarantee you that having that discussion with me would not upset you, yet I have no desire to cause you discomfort. Do you see my dilemma?

The bigger problem is that this is a Christians Only forum, so there is no possibility of a real discussion. At least not here.

 

[lismore]

There is nothing liberal about being honest, unless it is meaning to say liberation of the mind.

Well I'll tell you honestly, I think Darwinian Evolution, the survival of the fittest, death before Adam etc is the opposite of the gospel. Accepting it is sympomatic of how *ultra-liberal* the Catholic Church has become.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well I'll tell you honestly, I think Darwinian Evolution, the survival of the fittest, death before Adam etc is the opposite of the gospel. Accepting it is sympomatic of how *ultra-liberal* the Catholic Church has become.

Question is, why do you mix science and theology? The Church doesn't tell us what we must believe regarding evolution. The Church does not mix science and religion. Science tells us how the heavens go, religion tells us how to get to heaven.

FWIW, the Church does not say that Darwinian Evolution is acceptible. She does not say anything about 'survival of the fittest', either, for that matter, or for death before Adam. Why? Because all those ideas leave God out of the equation.

 

[lismore]

Question is, why do you mix science and theology? The Church doesn't tell us what we must believe regarding evolution. The Church does not mix science and religion. Science tells us how the heavens go, religion tells us how to get to heaven.

FWIW, the Church does not say that Darwinian Evolution is acceptible. She does not say anything about 'survival of the fittest', either, for that matter, or for death before Adam. Why? Because all those ideas leave God out of the equation.

That is why the Catholic Church is liberal IMO.

'The church doesn't tell us'
'The church doesn't say'

If you look at the churches in this country that are growing and the ones that are haemorrhaging members there is a pattern. The churches that are consistent in their teaching of the bible and the gospel grow, those who blur everything based on perceived threats from athiestic philosophies are dying.

Jesus could tell us and Jesus could say in regards to creation. Peter could tell us and Peter could say in regards to creation.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread had a small clean up. As a reminder, the site rules include this:

Do not post in the forums reserved for Christians only, unless you are truly a Nicene Creed, Trinitarian Christian (please see our Statement of Faith to know exactly what that is). If you wish to discuss unorthodox doctrines, you may do so in Unorthodox Theology.​

 

[Carmella Prochaska]

Hello. I think people on here are just gonna support their specific denomination. I think you should try to practise your faith according to the NT. Maybe if you don't agree with any specifics in various denominations, you could be non-denominational or just Christian.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Well I'll tell you honestly, I think Darwinian Evolution, the survival of the fittest, death before Adam etc is the opposite of the gospel. Accepting it is sympomatic of how *ultra-liberal* the Catholic Church has become.

One cannot deny something that is virtually certain. In fact, Pope Benedict depicted evolution as just that- virtually certain.
The Church has many hundreds of PhD theologians and scientists. They have all the man power needed to make an assessment, and that's what they did.
Adam and Eve is a moral history, not a literal one.

 

[SayaOtonashi]

There is not church closer to the early church because of the different beliefs on how to interent the bible. All church are the same if they taught you are saved in believe in Jesus chirst and belive in god. Some church teach the wrong thing.

 

[lismore]

Adam and Eve is a moral history, not a literal one.

There you go again, more liberal theology!

Paul, Peter and Jesus all quoted from the book of Genesis as if it was literal. Didn't they know?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/did-jesus-say-he-created-in-six-days

 

[Bethesda]

The RCC is much too liberal and wordly for my taste.

You could probably substitute that for any other denomination depending on the speakers view- interesting question but prone as ever to just turning into another denominational/doctrinal argument that is not very edifying

 

[Albion]

You could probably substitute that for any other denomination depending on the speakers view- interesting question but prone as ever to just turning into another denominational/doctrinal argument that is not very edifying

I doubt that very many people would complain that the Wisconsin Ev. Lutheran Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, the conservative Reformed church bodies, or a bunch of other denominations we could name are "too liberal." Some folks who don't attend worship services anywhere are a possibility, but they don't have any preferences. To them, everyone's wrong.

 

[Bethesda]

I doubt that very many people would complain that the Wisconsin Ev. Lutheran Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, the conservative Reformed church bodies, or a bunch of other denominations we could name are "too liberal." Some folks who don't attend worship services anywhere are a possibility, but they don't have any preferences. To them, everyone's wrong.

Apologies - what I meant was that everyone has their own views on the early church and what were its characteristics - allied to that the debates earlier in this thread that seek to impose later doctrinal views such as Calvinism and Pre-destination to then say this or that is the truest church today to the early Church - I'd imagine that even non liberal but non-Calvinist churches for example would be viewed in effect as 'liberal' (or in error) by those from such. Links back to the whole idea someone else had of new Church Council to get an agreed set of beliefs and views among all churches - great idea but not likely.

 

[Albion]

Apologies - what I meant was that everyone has their own views on the early church and what were its characteristics - allied to that the debates earlier in this thread that seek to impose later doctrinal views such as Calvinism and Pre-destination to then say this or that is the truest church today to the early Church - I'd imagine that even non liberal but non-Calvinist churches for example would be viewed in effect as 'liberal' (or in error) by those from such. Links back to the whole idea someone else had of new Church Council to get an agreed set of beliefs and views among all churches - great idea but not likely.

Well, I do get your point. OTOH, I actually hold the opinion that it is possible to make a rough estimate of what the early--depending on what is meant by that--church was like...and do it without a denominational bias. However, we cannot assume (although Catholics do, if only in theory) that what was the norm in the Apostolic Church was necessarily correct.