Comparing and Contrasting Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism

[prodromos]

I think this is an exaggeration.

I don't.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The first church was just a church... we added all these denominational names later.

So what's the "just a church" denomination teach? Serious question.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

So what's the "just a church" denomination teach? Serious question.

They went by what the apostles that established the churches taught them. The apostles doctrine which we can live by cause it's in the Nt.

 

[archer75]

They went by what the apostles that established the churches taught them. The apostles doctrine which we can live by cause it's in the Nt.

But the NT was determined / codified / selected by the church.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

But the NT was determined / codified / selected by the church.

Which church are you referring to?

 

[archer75]

Depending on when and where any given bit of "approval" to the texts was made: the mostly unified church, the Chalcedonian Church, the non-Chalcedonian church (the OO), the Anglican church...

Development of the New Testament canon - Wikipedia

No matter what you consider canonical, that definition / recognition / dogmatic definition took place somewhere, under the auspices of some church, at some time. There's no other "proof" that the apostolic faith is reflected in the NT.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Depending on when and where any given bit of "approval" to the texts was made: the mostly unified church, the Chalcedonian Church, the non-Chalcedonian church (the OO), the Anglican church...

Development of the New Testament canon - Wikipedia

No matter what you consider canonical, that definition / recognition / dogmatic definition took place somewhere, under the auspices of some church, at some time. There's no other "proof" that the apostolic faith is reflected in the NT.

Well of course since I'm apostolic I disagree with you. I'm not sure why stating that the apostolic faith isn't reflected in the NT changes that. I can simply respond by stating it is.

 

[archer75]

Well of course since I'm apostolic I disagree with you. I'm not sure why stating that the apostolic faith isn't reflected in the NT changes that. I can simply respond by stating it is.

I didn't say it wasn't reflected in the NT. I said without accepting the authority (at least in the past) of some body that defined the NT as such, there's...no reason to note the NT at all.

I don't mean to debate at all here, and I don't know that much about the Apostolic Church, but I guess I wonder how you even know what the NT "is" (I assume you don't take I Clement as canonical?) unless you tacitly assent to the authority of someone, somewhere, to say what it is.

By the way, I hadn't noticed your faith designation, so when I said "There's no other "proof" that the apostolic faith is reflected in the NT" I didn't mean the Apostolic Christian Church, I meant "the faith of the apostles. Just so you know, that wasn't a dig at your church in any way.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

I didn't say it wasn't reflected in the NT. I said without accepting the authority (at least in the past) of some body that defined the NT as such, there's...no reason to note the NT at all.

I don't mean to debate at all here, and I don't know that much about the Apostolic Church, but I guess I wonder how you even know what the NT "is" (I assume you don't take I Clement as canonical?) unless you tacitly assent to the authority of someone, somewhere, to say what it is.

By the way, I hadn't noticed your faith designation, so when I said "There's no other "proof" that the apostolic faith is reflected in the NT" I didn't mean the Apostolic Christian Church, I meant "the faith of the apostles. Just so you know, that wasn't a dig at your church in any way.

My church is based off the teachings of the apostles though. And by higher authority are you referring to a pastor or leader?

 

[archer75]

My church is based off the teachings of the apostles though. And by higher authority are you referring to a pastor or leader?

This is getting too confusing. Just for the record, I meant no offense of any kind. I understand that your church is based on the apostles' teachings. But the fact remains that "apostolic faith" could mean your church or "the church in the time of the apostles" or something like that. That was the misunderstanding. Apologies for that.

Not a pastor or leader. Never mind. I'm sorry I said anything.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

This is getting too confusing. Just for the record, I meant no offense of any kind. I understand that your church is based on the apostles' teachings. But the fact remains that "apostolic faith" could mean your church or "the church in the time of the apostles" or something like that. That was the misunderstanding. Apologies for that.

Not a pastor or leader. Never mind. I'm sorry I said anything.

Yeah I was confused from the start when you mentioned the angalican church and those other churches , wasn't sure what it had to do with anything so I got confused

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

They went by what the apostles that established the churches taught them. The apostles doctrine which we can live by cause it's in the Nt.

That's no different from what any "denomination" claims. They all claim to be loyal and faithful to the Apostolic deposit. What is the distinguishing mark of a church which is non denominational? Is it complete autonomy from an outside community? is it being a self formed community based on it's reading of the bible? Is there a particular doctrine the non denominational holds to which all denominational Christians don't?

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

That's no different from what any "denomination" claims. They all claim to be loyal and faithful to the Apostolic deposit. What is the distinguishing mark of a church which is non denominational? Is it complete autonomy from an outside community? is it being a self formed community based on it's reading of the bible? Is there a particular doctrine the non denominational holds to which all denominational Christians don't?

you make a good point and I have a good answer. What every "Christian" should do is do something I did, take time to study the Bible and find out for yourself what is true doctrine while seeking god for guidance in this search as well. Step outside of what you grew up with or have accustomed yourself to and find out what god wants you to believe. Many people use this method when it comes to what political party they will identity with also. Maybe they grew up republican because of their parents but they decide to step out of that and look for themselves. Like the Bible says narrow is the way so ignore claims and instead research for yourself is my advice to you. This was a problem in he NT and Ot as well, many claimed their god was real or claimed to live by true doctrine, and many were wrong. God bless and keep seeking god will answer

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

you make a good point and I have a good answer. What every "Christian" should do is do something I did, take time to study the Bible and find out for yourself what is true doctrine while seeking god for guidance in this search as well. Step outside of what you grew up with or have accustomed yourself to and find out what you believe. Many people use this method when it comes to what political party they will identity with also. Maybe they grew up republican because of their parents but they decide to step out of that and look for themselves. Like the Bible says narrow is the way so ignore claims and instead research for yourself is my advice to you. God bless

Such a method seems radically to fly in the face of the Apostolic model in that we see that in the Church of the first century there were men appointed to teach. Paul never just handed out his letters only and never talked, rather he talked and gave out letters. We don't see in the bible the church operating on the basis of people reading the scripture and coming to their own conclusions, rather we see people preaching and people receiving and accepting or rejecting it. That preaching, the existence of the other (the teacher) has always been an element necessary just as the scripture has always been necessary (new Testament included).

If I understand you correctly and reading the bible and coming to an idea from it is the basis of a non-denominational understanding I would suggest that methodology itself is flawed. It is flawed it expects too much of the individual person to be able to perceive the scripture without the aid of other people and only that of the Holy Spirit I assume. We should take into consideration that reading is a luxury few would enjoy at the time of the Apostles and so this method would not apply to the grand majority of those who would become Christians yet it is the standard for us today?

This is why I find the non-denominational understanding lacking. It works within a framework the Apostles themselves didn't work in or didn't leave us. The Apostles not only left us the scripture, they also left us a community, a community which was not independent of one another but were to help each other and teach other.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Such a method seems radically to fly in the face of the Apostolic model in that we see that in the Church of the first century there were men appointed to teach. Paul never just handed out his letters only and never talked, rather he talked and gave out letters. We don't see in the bible the church operating on the basis of people reading the scripture and coming to their own conclusions, rather we see people preaching and people receiving and accepting or rejecting it. That preaching, the existence of the other (the teacher) has always been an element necessary just as the scripture has always been necessary (new Testament included).

If I understand you correctly and reading the bible and coming to an idea from it is the basis of a non-denominational understanding I would suggest that methodology itself is flawed. It is flawed it expects too much of the individual person to be able to perceive the scripture without the aid of other people and only that of the Holy Spirit I assume. We should take into consideration that reading is a luxury few would enjoy at the time of the Apostles and so this method would not apply to the grand majority of those who would become Christians yet it is the standard for us today?

This is why I find the non-denominational understanding lacking. It works within a framework the Apostles themselves didn't work in or didn't leave us. The Apostles not only left us the scripture, they also left us a community, a community which was not independent of one another but were to help each other and teach other.

if you read the Bible and pray you can come to an understanding. A pastor of FGHt Dallas for example who passed away now came to an understanding that way and formed the huge church. Starters of the recent pentocostol movement of my faith did the same thing almost as he did. Don't limit god. Now sure I agree it's best to meet with someone who has the Holy Spirit but if you were to apply your own logic to this... "how do we know he has the Holy Spirit" how do we know he's a good preacher since god says "if any man preach any other doctrine" and doctrine is found in the Bible. As you pointed out inconveniently I may add haha everyone claims to have the Holy Spirit, and every one claims their church is right, and everyone claims their doctrine is right. Now I personally used sermons online to help also tbh not saying you can't do that but what I'm saying is if someone is gullible at the moment and can't tell a true preacher from a false one. Serious pray and a bible is a good start

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

if you read the Bible and pray you can come to an understanding. A pastor of FGHt Dallas for example who passed away now came to an understanding that way and formed the huge church. Starters of the recent pentocostol movement of my faith did the same thing almost as he did. Don't limit god. Now sure I agree it's best to meet with someone who has the Holy Spirit but if you were to apply your own logic to this... "how do we know he has the Holy Spirit" how do we know he's a good preacher since god says "if any man preach any other doctrine" and doctrine is found in the Bible. Now I personally used sermons online to help also tbh not saying you can't do that but what I'm saying is if someone is gullible at the moment and can't tell a true preacher from a false one. Serious pray and a bible is a good start

None of this establishes this practice as genuinely apostolic which you made a point of in your original post. I am not limiting God but I would question any movement that touts itself as Apostolic over an above my own church (being Orthodox I sort of have to). Too often when people simply "trust in the spirit" all they are doing is trusting in themselves, assuming that the Spirit works exclusively in them yet that's not how the Spirit operates. We aren't all saint Pauls who receive visions of the third heaven, most of us are ordinary members of a community and the Holy Spirit acts in others to guide us as well as correct us. This is particularly true of those who have made it their duty to teach doctrine or a correct understanding.

Prayer and reading the bible is good, but what is better is to belong to a communion while doing those things. The communion keeps you in check and prevents you from inventing your own particular heresies.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

None of this establishes this practice as genuinely apostolic which you made a point of in your original post. I am not limiting God but I would question any movement that touts itself as Apostolic over an above my own church (being Orthodox I sort of have to). Too often when people simply "trust in the spirit" all they are doing is trusting in themselves, assuming that the Spirit works exclusively in them yet that's not how the Spirit operates. We aren't all saint Pauls who receive visions of the third heaven, most of us are ordinary members of a community and the Holy Spirit acts in others to guide us as well as correct us. This is particularly true of those who have made it their duty to teach doctrine or a correct understanding.

Prayer and reading the bible is good, but what is better is to belong to a communion while doing those things. The communion keeps you in check and prevents you from inventing your own particular heresies.

Inmean I'm not trying to talk down about your orthodox faith or whatever I didn't even know you were orthodox cause on phone now tbh. But anyway you act like I'm suggesting just read and study and stay at home and trust God and that's it. The man became a pastor... he didn't simply stay home with the spirit. I'm a preacher... I'm not disputing not going to church in fact the Bible tells us to forsake not the assembling of ourselves together. Once you find truth or have a inkling of what it is you then find a church that reflects that. Next the movement was simply a continuation of such experiences that have happened in the past and in the NT It's not based off some new phenomenon like Scientology for example

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Inmean I'm not trying to talk down about your orthodox faith or whatever I didn't even know you were orthodox cause on phone now tbh. But anyway you act like I'm suggesting just read and study and stay at home and trust God and that's it. The man became a pastor... he didn't simply stay home with the spirit. I'm a preacher... I'm not disputing not going to church in fact the Bible tells us to forsake not the assembling of ourselves together. Once you find truth or have a inkling of what it is you then find a church that reflects that. Next the movement was simply a continuation of such experiences that have happened in the past and in the NT It's not based off some new phenomenon like Scientology for example

I know your not talking down about Orthodoxy. Please don't think I'm offended because we disagree. It's the bolded part I have a problem with in that I don't think that's a good standard. The idea isn't to find a church which reflects what we believe in, rather it is to find the Church and join it. I like to think of the second century Christians as an example, what did the new convert face? He likely faced multiple options of Gnosticism, perhaps a Judaising sect and then he would have seen the orthodox like Ignatius or Clement. What group would he be obligated as a new believer in Christ to be grafted into? It would be that Church with the connection to the Apostles, a church they themselves established and left behind.

The problem with the non-denominational understanding of things is that it assumes visible communion between Christians is not as important as the invisible communion. Why should anyone feel at liberty to start a Church simply because they have read the bible? We have no basis for this in the New Testament and so the only justification i can think of is that the non denom thinks they have it right where everyone else has it wrong to some degree or another.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

I know your not talking down about Orthodoxy. Please don't think I'm offended because we disagree. It's the bolded part I have a problem with in that I don't think that's a good standard. The idea isn't to find a church which reflects what we believe in, rather it is to find the Church and join it. I like to think of the second century Christians as an example, what did the new convert face? He likely faced multiple options of Gnosticism, perhaps a Judaising sect and then he would have seen the orthodox like Ignatius or Clement. What group would he be obligated as a new believer in Christ to be grafted into? It would be that Church with the connection to the Apostles, a church they themselves established and left behind.

The problem with the non-denominational understanding of things is that it assumes visible communion between Christians is not as important as the invisible communion. Why should anyone feel at liberty to start a Church simply because they have read the bible? We have no basis for this in the New Testament and so the only justification i can think of is that the non denom thinks they have it right where everyone else has it wrong to some degree or another.

He said he was led by god to start a church at his house and eventually a small one in the area and it grew and grew. I never got to meet the original pastor so of course I can't confirm him being led by god, but the teachings of the current pastor are biblical. And he learned from the original pastor of FGHt Dallas so you can kind of assume yeah. And that's sort of my point though in order to know if the church you attend or are thinking about going to for example is a true church you see if it lines up with the word. "This is the word by which the gospel is preached unto you". I'm not saying the only way as well is to read your bible and seek god, many like myself knew people in truth that helped guide me. Many maybe grew up in truth they just had to determine for themselves it's the truth by seeing if it lines up with the word. There isn't one method to find a church led by god. IK another guy who went from faith to faith to church to church until he settled down. And again I'm not advocating to find a church that reflects what we believe in but what the Bible says is true. I never said find a church that fits what an peeson feels comftsble with or believes, as you pointed out that would fit in with a non denominational perspective to a degree. I say to a degree because there are some that are non denominational but might as well be baptist, or catholic etc. because they line up so close with that faith. Like they say "you can come and seek god as you seek him" or whatever but you walk in and it's clearly leans towards a particular faith.

 

[Alex C]

Hi there. Just read through all 7 pages of comments. Phew. I guess for 20 years of my Christian life I've read and believed the Bible because it "works" - it encourages me, it speaks to me, it has life. Recently I've started to read the early Church fathers (Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian so far). They seem desperate to know what Jesus taught, to find copies of Christian writings, to decide which ones are right, and to combat heresy. They quote scripture again and again to back up their points. There seems a lot of messiness and conflict.

Which is the same as nowadays. I agree that we can't just all decide what scripture means for ourselves and so we need to listen to the Church ... but there are major differences between the different ways the different Churches (EO, RC, Protestant, Anglican, etc.) interpret the scripture: so which Church do you listen to?

Maybe the basic necessity is humility. Humility to recognise that my personal interpretations of the scriptures might be wrong and so I need to listen to a wider Church authority. Humility to recognise that there are other Churches out there which interpret the Bible differently from my church. Humility that leads to desperation to know more about the Bible, and study it thoroughly and other Churches' views on it.

I am powerless. I get a lot out of following morning prayer in Anglican Roman Catholic and very occasionally Eastern Orthodox liturgies. I am an Anglican. I wish I was more able to balance my pioneering, experimental nature with being in a church that I need to respect the authority of so I don't become a lone wolf. Peace, Alex