A State of Confussion

[tigersnare]

Ok guys, I've been trying to avoid this issue for a year now. It's time to start reading church history and the early church fathers.

The little bit I've seen spells disaster for what I believe right now, I mean....to me, it points in the direction of the Catholic Church being exactly what it says it is.

I don't know what's going on...


How many of you have honestly studied the early Church and still found that the Catholic Church isn't the true Church? What brought you to this conclusion?

If you did study the early Church and realized the Catholic Church was right, would you convert?


I'm almost afraid of what I'm going to find, my pastor and friends would be "crushed" I think. They have really poured love out on me, but they are all Reformed.

 

[Bulldog]

I have noticed in my studies of the early church fathers that they are very contradictionry. Some had Roman Catholic ideas, some had Protestant ideas, but they simply referred to themselves as "Catholic".

I have noticed an evolution as the church beliefs, toward the current beliefs of the RCC.

For example, no one in the first four five church centuries believed the bodily assumption or queen of heaven view of Mary which Rome has dogmatically defined. I have also noticed that the majority of the Early church fathers did not take the modern Roman view of Matt. 16:18-19. The doctrine of purgatory did not come around until long after men like Augustine. Many of the early church believed the suffuciency of scripture. For example, Athanasius reprooved the church at a time when most of it was Arian, through scripture alone, not tradition. his cannot happen any more, because Rome claims the right to define scripture infallibly, and claims that those who try to reproove it have no authority to do so.

In short, I would not call the early church Roman Catholic,they are very contradictory. There are very few issues that are united on, unlike the modern RCC.

 

[rnmomof7]

I think that as often happens men crept in and added to the doctrine .

I consider myself a direct descendant of the apostles and the early disciples.

 

[calgal]

How to say this without thoroughly irritating the RC's: Disclaimer: NOT A FLAME to the RCC BUT a set of interesting historical facts to help.

1. The original churches were set up according to the Eastern Orthodox model and were headed by 5 patriarchs: Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem & Rome. Rome was the primary patriarch from 381 AD until 1054 AD when the Eastern churches split from the Western Churches around the time of the crusades. If you want a really interesting lesson in history, I highly recommend an Antiochian Orthodox church visit. The folks are really nice and helpful and they do regard the Popes as patriarchs that got "above themselves." Also, note that Constantinople migrated to Russia around 1453 AD.
2. Rome around this time became very very wealthy and very corrupt. I recommend the movie Luther to see a rather nice visual of the "Indulgences" that so upset that great Reformer.
3. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin initially attempted to reform the Catholic Church from within. That was found to be impossible due to some serious internal corruption. Thus the Reformation became a bit differently focused.
4. The modern Catholic church is Pelagian in nature and ideology.

Hope that helps (I do recommend reading up on the topic a bit more). PM me for any questions.

 

[ksen]

Ok guys, I've been trying to avoid this issue for a year now. It's time to start reading church history and the early church fathers.

The little bit I've seen spells disaster for what I believe right now, I mean....to me, it points in the direction of the Catholic Church being exactly what it says it is.

I don't know what's going on...


How many of you have honestly studied the early Church and still found that the Catholic Church isn't the true Church? What brought you to this conclusion?

If you did study the early Church and realized the Catholic Church was right, would you convert?


I'm almost afraid of what I'm going to find, my pastor and friends would be "crushed" I think. They have really poured love out on me, but they are all Reformed.

How about you list out some of the points that are troubling you? It's harder to try and help if we don't know what you are specifically looking at.

 

[tigersnare]

I will discuss specifics but it would have to be via PM strickly, the last thing I want is to have 100 pages of Church history being disputed by you guys and the Catholic guys in the room.

 

[M. Wayne Bradley]

Tiger, it's good to come here and get input from people, but if I were you I'd read stuff like Gerstner's Primer on Roman Catholicism, Dabney's The Attractions of Popery (available online, just Google it) and also Eric Svendsen's Evangelical Answers. Also, check out James White's Alpha & Omega site. Those are all good places to start, and will give you plenty to chew on.

 

[BBAS 64]

I will discuss specifics but it would have to be via PM strickly, the last thing I want is to have 100 pages of Church history being disputed by you guys and the Catholic guys in the room.

Good Day, Tiger snare

I can understand your concern here, But it has been my exper with issues of church history that even when history is contray to the current believes of the RRC it is srugged aside by saying one man does not a doctrine make. Which IMO is hardly historical reasoning. May be the church history fourm is good for such things. I would hope that you would raise some specfics here an get a reformed view and the Roman Catholics would honor the rules.

I think that a good place to start is with Augustine and his work on predestination, now most RC'S understand that the church "today" does not hold the same view as Augustine did in his time. Seeing that Augustine was the Bishop of Africa his teaching at that time was very important to those who elected him to that post, and greatly contributed to their thought process, to ignore this IMO is short sited with in the view of history.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[ksen]

I will discuss specifics but it would have to be via PM strickly, the last thing I want is to have 100 pages of Church history being disputed by you guys and the Catholic guys in the room.

Then why did you bother posting this thread?

 

[Grace_Alone4gives]

I will discuss specifics but it would have to be via PM strickly, the last thing I want is to have 100 pages of Church history being disputed by you guys and the Catholic guys in the room.

There are no Catholic guys in this room.
If there is...they cant debate.
So feel free.

 

[rnmomof7]

Sometimes things just do not pass the smell rest . This is one of those times

 

[tigersnare]

[/b]

Then why did you bother posting this thread?

I was/am concerned, and I was looking for people to make contact with who have gone through this and still came out reformed. Sorry if I wasted your time...

 

[Bulldog]

Yes, I did go through a point where the RCC seemed appealing. But after reaserchign scripture and church fathers, I came to the conclusion that it was not the church for me....

I would be greived if you did convert.

 

[tigersnare]

Sometimes things just do not pass the smell rest . This is one of those times

I find this very offensive, for some reason you have decided to respond to all my post lately in this manner. You seem to be questioning my motives and sincerity, but instead of PM'ing me about this personal matter, you, even being a Moderator, chose to smear my name out on the open board like this.

Why?