Comparing and Contrasting Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism

[archer75]

But that isn't any better an argument. To say that the Church created Scripture, or the Bible, simply is a trick with words.

Sure, the church codified the books of the Bible or puts its stamp of approval upon them, but they stand on their own as either true or not. The Church didn't make some of them be God's revelation.

Well, sure. I meant, and maybe should have said, that the Church CREATED the NT as a collection in which some writings were included and many were not.

 

[Albion]

Well, sure. I meant, and maybe should have said, that the Church CREATED the NT as a collection in which some writings were included and many were not.

You mean that in the most literal way. She put all these books under one cover.

So...?

 

[archer75]

You mean in the most literal way. She put all these books under one cover.

So...?

So, the very fact that the NT as we have it - i.e. - take the Gospel of Mark as canonical and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas as non-canonical - was "defined" by the Church means that there was an authority outside of scripture on which even Sola Scriptura believers rely, although at a remove of many years.

 

[Albion]

So, the very fact that the NT as we have it - i.e. - take the Gospel of Mark as canonical and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas as non-canonical - was "defined" by the Church means that there was an authority outside of scripture on which even Sola Scriptura believers rely, although at a remove of many years.

But it does not mean that. What it means is that something of importance was recognized by the church, just like mankind's figuring out that the world is spherical instead of flat was a recognition of the true shape of the planet. This "discovery" did not change the shape of the planet from flat to round nor was it without form before the decision was made.

BUT EVEN SO, it's still not the doing of one denomination. There's absolutely no question about that, despite what the people who enjoy using that argument like to think.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

What does the Eastern Orthodox Church believe?

What does the Roman Catholic Church believe?

I believe (I may be wrong) the Protestant churches believe the Five Solas of the Protestant Reformation
Sola Scriptura- The belief that Scripture is the rule of faith, not creed.
Sola Fide- The belief that faith justifies the individual, not works.
Sola Christus- The belief in the substitutionary atonement of Christ in place of the sinner.
Sola Gratia- The belief that salvation is a work of God's grace alone, not human assistance.
Soli Deo Gloria- The belief that one should live under the lordship of God alone.

Five Solas | Theopedia

My hope is that we can come to appreciate each other's differences and understand each other better as we are all one in Christ Jesus.

interesting also I believe yeah people can be saved in any faith, but not everyone is one with christ though that's a stretch.

 

[dqhall]

research the waldensians, lollards
research the Anabaptist movement.
though not all followed the pure movement
for sadly munsters group picked up arms...
bad seeds in every group.
here is something most don't know.
Constantine..............most know he was not really a christain.
but what most don't know is
he had the true christains who refused to conform to his huge church state as one
KILLED..............
yes true believers even way back then that knew
paganism and christanity ought never mix
were persecuted . Most, few know this.
now...........you did ask. so please don't anyone report me .

Christianity was illegal until Constantine legalized it. According to Eusebius, God showed Constantine a vision near the Milvan Bridge to conquer the anti-Christian army opposing him for the glory of God. Constantine was crowned emperor and legalized Christianity. Constantine was not able to eradicate sun worship. Because he was a military man, Constantine may not have been able to fully convert to Christianity until his death bed. Constantine's mother was Queen Helena. She went to the Holy Land and built churches to commemorate events from Jesus' life.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Christianity was illegal until Constantine legalized it. According to Eusebius, God showed Constantine a vision near the Milvan Bridge to conquer the anti-Christian army opposing him for the glory of God. Constantine was crowned emperor and legalized Christianity. Constantine was not able to eradicate sun worship. Because he was a military man, Constantine may not have been able to fully convert to Christianity until his death bed. Constantine's mother was Queen Helena. She went to the Holy Land and built churches to commemorate events from Jesus' life.

When Christianity is agreeable or seen as legal and acceptable in the worlds eyes it's not Christianity it's conformity.

 

[Albion]

Because he was a military man, Constantine may not have been able to fully convert to Christianity until his death bed.

There's no good reason to think he wasn't a Christian until near his death. The reason people often say that is because he put off his baptism until then; but while this seems tell-tale to us today, it was a common practice at that time in history and owes simply to the idea that no sins committed after baptism could be forgiven. We don't think that way anymore but, obviously, if we DID, we'd try to receive the sacrament of Baptism as close to our deaths as possible.

 

[anna ~ grace]

But it does not mean that. What it means is that something of importance was recognized by the church, just like mankind's figuring out that the world is spherical instead of flat was a recognition of the true shape of the planet. This "discovery" did not change the shape of the planet from flat to round nor was it without form before the decision was made.

BUT EVEN SO, it's still not the doing of one denomination. There's absolutely no question about that, despite what the people who enjoy using that argument like to think.

Truthfully, though, as the Apostles would have been the first members of the Church, taught the Traditions that would be handed down through the Church, wrote the Scriptures, and dwelt in a community of faith and practice identified as the Catholic Church, and developed (as an Apostolic Community of teachers, theologians, and prayerful men) the cannon, it does kind of make sense to say that the Catholic Church (or Orthodox Church, if you're writing from an EO/OO point of view) gave us the Scriptures.

 

[anna ~ grace]

I mean, the Scriptures are as much a part of Tradition as, say, liturgy, prayers, the veneration of the Saints, teachings on salvation, fasting, pilgrimage, the calendar of Holy Days, and Sacraments. You can't really divide the contents and interpretation / application of Scripture from the wider body of beliefs and practices that made up the over-all experience of learning from and following Christ, through His Church.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

One difference between Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy/Roman Catholicism is that the first cannot identify the Church of the fathers as their own and nor could Protestants claim to be anything but an intellectual heir to the Apostles rather than being part of the historical community they established. Churches before the reformation, be that Orthodox, Catholic or Oriental are proud of their historical lineage and connection to the believers all throughout history. This is the result of Sola Scriptura, it neglects the importance of the Church as a people of God.

research the waldensians, lollards
research the Anabaptist movement.
though not all followed the pure movement
for sadly munsters group picked up arms...
bad seeds in every group.
here is something most don't know.
Constantine..............most know he was not really a christain.
but what most don't know is
he had the true christains who refused to conform to his huge church state as one
KILLED..............
yes true believers even way back then that knew
paganism and christanity ought never mix
were persecuted . Most, few know this.
now...........you did ask. so please don't anyone report me .

Can you demonstrate the existence of the Waldensian before the 10th century?

Also, who did Constantine kill exactly that was a true Christian?

 

[Albion]

Truthfully, though, as the Apostles would have been the first members of the Church, taught the Traditions that would be handed down through the Church, wrote the Scriptures, and dwelt in a community of faith and practice identified as the Catholic Church, and developed (as an Apostolic Community of teachers, theologians, and prayerful men) the cannon, it does kind of make sense to say that the Catholic Church (or Orthodox Church, if you're writing from an EO/OO point of view) gave us the Scriptures.

Not unless you misrepresent the use of the word "catholic" (meaning authentic, not Gnostic)in the first century to be a reference to the Roman Catholic Church that wouldn't even come into being for another 200 or so years!

If we do that, we might as well also say that only the Jehovah's Witnesses actually witness for the Lord God, the Eastern Orthodox are the only Christians who are orthodox in their beliefs and practices, and the Baptists are the only ones who baptize converts. The name that any particular denomination chooses for its legal "handle" isn't what defines its identity.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Not unless you misrepresent the use of the word "catholic" (meaning authentic, not Gnostic)in the first century to be a reference to the Roman Catholic Church that wouldn't even come into being for another 200 or so years!

If we do that, we might as well also say that only the Jehovah's Witnesses actually witness for the Lord God, the Eastern Orthodox are the only Christians who are orthodox in their beliefs and practices, and the Baptists are the only ones who baptize converts. The name that any particular denomination chooses for its legal "handle" isn't what defines its identity.

How do you figure the Roman Catholic Church came about 200 years after the apostles? Did the Roman church that Ireneaus was familiar with along with Justin and Cyprian simply cease to exist by the year 300?

 

[Albion]

How do you figure the Roman Catholic Church came about 200 years after the apostles? Did the Roman church that Ireneaus was familiar with along with Justin and Cyprian simply cease to exist by the year 300?

Prior to about that time, there were a flock of sects, mostly remembered by us as Gnostic movements. The mainline and "catholic" church was what we call "the undivided church" from which many of today's denominations claim descent.

But as for the particular one we're concerned with at this point, there was no concept of a Papacy, let alone any infallibility or universal jurisdiction, etc. until about the fourth or fifth century AD.

Take away the most distinguishing characteristic of the jurisdiction, one that is indispensable to the Roman Catholic Church's concept of itself, and you don't have that particular denomination.

 

[archer75]

But it does not mean that. What it means is that something of importance was recognized by the church, just like mankind's figuring out that the world is spherical instead of flat was a recognition of the true shape of the planet. This "discovery" did not change the shape of the planet from flat to round nor was it without form before the decision was made.

BUT EVEN SO, it's still not the doing of one denomination. There's absolutely no question about that, despite what the people who enjoy using that argument like to think.

But it kind of does mean that. I, for one, would have no way of intuiting that 1 Timothy should be canonical and 1 Clement shouldn't. That means I recognize in some way the authority of the Church outside of Scripture to tell me what is Scripture.

And yeah, it's not the doing of any one denomination of today -- but it's STILL not Scripture that packaged itself for me. It's the Church.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Not unless you misrepresent the use of the word "catholic" (meaning authentic, not Gnostic) in the first century to be a reference to the Roman Catholic Church that wouldn't even come into being for another 200 or so years!

But, see, that's really not true. The Catholic Church, which the Protestant world often now refers to as the "Roman Catholic Church" doesn't seem to have started with Constantine at all. It pre-dates him.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Prior to about that time, there were a flock of sects, mostly remembered by us as Gnostic movements. The mainline and "catholic" church was what we call "the undivided church" from which many of today's denominations claim descent.

But as for the particular one we're concerned with at this point, there was no concept of a Papacy, let alone any infallibility or universal jurisdiction, etc. until about the fourth or fifth century AD.

Take away the most distinguishing characteristic of the jurisdiction, one that is indispensable to the Roman Catholic Church's concept of itself, and you don't have that particular denomination.

So your argument is that with the concept of the Papacy a new church began to exist rather than an idea being developed within an already existing church? I cannot agree as it seems clear to me there is one solid communion within Rome despite it's latter pretensions to universal jurisdiction and the ultimate authority of the Pope.

Who was the last true Bishop of Rome in your mind?

 

[anna ~ grace]

But as for the particular one we're concerned with at this point, there was no concept of a Papacy, let alone any infallibility or universal jurisdiction, etc. until about the fourth or fifth century AD.

Also, not true. The pre-Nicene Christians had quite a bit to say about what we now describe as the Papacy. And the Apostles and their authority in general.

ACTS - Early Church Fathers on the Papacy

 

[Albion]

But it kind of does mean that. I, for one, would have no way of intuiting that 1 Timothy should be canonical and 1 Clement shouldn't.

You or I might say that, but if we go back to the time of the codification we're talking about, all or almost all of the churches in the Christian world were already using every last book that the councils agreed to put into the Bible. They had already come to the decision you are trying to date from the time the councils accepted this fact. They only really dealt with several books out of the more than 70 that were finally approved.

that means I recognize in some way the authority of the Church outside of Scripture to tell me what is Scripture.

You don't seem to be acknowledging that point I've made several time already. You don't recognize any authority by this except for the authority to define Scripture (even if we set aside all the facts I referred to above). To recognize the council's decision in the matter of canonizing Scripture doesn't in any way mean accepting any church organization's "authority" to speak for God on everything else. And, of course, this isn't the Roman Catholic Church we're talking about anyway.

And yeah, it's not the doing of any one denomination of today -- but it's STILL not Scripture that packaged itself for me. It's the Church.

So you're now saying that the church, not the Vatican Catholic Church in particular, merely "packaged" the Bible books. Great. But how does that make this or some institutional church body the equal of the Bible when it comes to doctrine, practice, morals, and everything else that we turn to the Bible for? That's the real issue we're looking at--the claim that the Bible isn't the ultimate authority on doctrine, but church leaders, traditions, and etc. are equally authoritative.

 

[Albion]

Also, not true. The pre-Nicene Christians had quite a bit to say about what we now describe as the Papacy. And the Apostles and their authority in general.

ACTS - Early Church Fathers on the Papacy

Pick a quotation that actually claims or asserts that the Church of Rome, with Pope, is the one true church from the time of the Apostles forward. I'm not finding that in the quotes you offered us.

Half of those quotes are from people who lived after the time frame we were dealing with anyway.