A few questions for Protestants

[rturner76]

I would like to understand what you are saying b4 commenting. Coud you re-word the highlighted part?

I think I get what you're saying but want to make sure. Thanks. I am wary of global... anything. And the liberalism in the Church doesn't portend a good outcome even if we had one

What I am referring to are the ecumenical conferences where representatives, mostly Bishops representing the region basically, are the boss of bosses for that country to region. Between the major early churches like Jerusalem, Ethiopia, Eastern Europe, etc. Under Emperor Constantine, Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. That created what is often referred to as the "Ecumenical counsels." which were tasked to compile all of the divinely inspired materials that most of the churches were already using and circulating these materials. They eventually organized it by book and chapter. Just a little background in consideration of the statement you requested that I reword (it was a mess I admit).

a global community of people with education and experience who come to a consensus, rather a gifted speaker saying "forget what you know, it's really this way."

What I mean by this statement is, As global Ecumenical councils were gathered, they debated and voted on what was to be considered divinely inspired writing. They also would vote on doctrine if a Bishop or Priest began preaching on some unapproved interpretation. The main point I was trying to convey. The reason that I ended up where I am spiritually is that I believe more in the consensus of the global community of the early churches than a denomination (or non-denomination) who broke from the global church because they found that their study of theology was in disagreement with the global church or more specifically, the early church.

I'm sure the people who would form their own opinions and denominations are learned scholars, they didn't (and don't) lack education and understanding. What they don't have is a global consensus of Bishops other than the Bishops that are trained to follow that particular denomination's teaching and interpretation of scripture.

Does that make sense at all? I can give some examples of what I'm talking about if I didn't properly clarify.

 

[jas3]

I want to preface this by saying that your position is generally correct, but there are some details that need clarifying:

That created what is often referred to as the "Ecumenical counsels." which were tasked to compile all of the divinely inspired materials that most of the churches were already using and circulating these materials. They eventually organized it by book and chapter. Just a little background in consideration of the statement you requested that I reword (it was a mess I admit).

What I mean by this statement is, As global Ecumenical councils were gathered, they debated and voted on what was to be considered divinely inspired writing. They also would vote on doctrine if a Bishop or Priest began preaching on some unapproved interpretation.

No ecumenical council, at least not in the first millennium, determined the canon of Scripture or even debated it. And there were not really debates and votes like you would see in a modern legislature (or modern Protestant general conferences) where people make arguments in favor of or against a position and then a bare majority decides which position to take; that's the view that Dan Brown promoted in The Da Vinci Code to say that Jesus' divinity just happened to win a "relatively close vote" as if it were debatable at Nicaea.
In reality, the bishops were almost unanimous on what the orthodox faith was, and the emperors called councils with a particular result they expected to achieve.

I'm sure the people who would form their own opinions and denominations are learned scholars, they didn't (and don't) lack education and understanding. What they don't have is a global consensus of Bishops other than the Bishops that are trained to follow that particular denomination's teaching and interpretation of scripture.

This is exactly right, although more often than not, the Protestant denominations of today reject even the existence of the office of "bishop," which makes it extra ironic that they hold to a creed that was written by bishops at a council of bishops.

 

[timothyu]

Rabbis constantly argued the points of their scriptures even to this day. Even God gives us free choice. Seems like the gentiles are the ones to demand everyone follows a controlled narrative, free choice punishable by regulation, be it secular or religion..

 

[jas3]

Rabbis constantly argued the points of their scriptures even to this day. Even God gives us free choice. Seems like the gentiles are the ones to demand everyone follows a controlled narrative, free choice punishable by regulation, be it secular or religion..

What's your point?

 

[timothyu]

What's your point?

Not a good way to run His Kingdom.. unless of course the intention is merely to run their own.

 

[jas3]

Not a good way to run His Kingdom.. unless of course the intention is merely to run their own.

What's not a good way to run the Kingdom? Ecumenical councils?

 

[rturner76]

No ecumenical council, at least not in the first millennium, determined the canon of Scripture or even debated it.

Yes, my retelling of history admittedly has a few holes from me trying to bang out a response without taking the proper care to clarify my statement. You are exactly right. Ecumenical counsels did not appear until Emperor Constantine organized one of the first major synod where the global church(s) decided what books would make up the Old and New Testaments. The main thing I was trying to convey was that I prefer to follow a global consensus of the bishops of the ancient churches rather than someone coming along 1,200 or so years later and deciding they got it all wrong even though they for the most part follow the theology of Augustine who was considered one of the most important theologians to come along at that point.