Dear DarkNLovely,
First, let me reassure you, nothing you have written in the slightest bit offends me; you have simply represented, very well, the position taken up by those from outside the Apostolic Churches.
That is not incompatible with what I was saying: who was it who established the canon? It was the Church, and it was the Council at Nicaea which indeed confirmed the existing view of the Church. The Council was presided over by the emperor and took the views of the bishops - who were bishops of the universal orthodox Church, not a set of ministers from different Churches.
If you want more on this read something like Stuart Hall's Doctrine and Practice of the Early Church (SPCK 1991, new edition 2005).
Dr. Michael Green (An Anglican) has written a fascinating and very accessible book, The Books the Church Suppressed (Monarch Books 2005) which makes these points very well, and provides chapter and verse for the Catholic/Orthodox view.
Fr. Peter Gillquist's Becoming Orthodox (Conciliar Press, 1990) shows how an Evangelical Protestant reacted to discovering the truth about the history of the Faith.
How can you be so sure? What was the significance of the 12 Apostles and the 70 others selected if it was not to act as bishops? Acts 15 shows us that as early as the 40s A.D. there was a structure, and it is one the Church has followed ever since. What was so special about mankind in the 1500s that it suddenly became right to abandon the teachings of tradition? No sooner had one group of 'protestants' protested and broken away from the Church than another group broke away from the first group and so on untilo today. Yet Christ said He was establishing a Church, and He warned us against those who preached any other doctrine, as did His disciples the Apostles. Now it may be that men in the sixteenth century thought they knew better, but the modern situation where there are so many 'Churches' with each relying on its own 'research', hardly equates with the One Church founded by Christ.
The idea that the early Church was very 'Jewish' is one that is also dealt with in Hall's history quoted above. St. Paul's great contribution was to ensure the Gospel was preached to the Gentiles, and so of the Judaisers were were cross with him for doing so. When you say that 'you see' Paul as continuing the Jewish nature of the Church, I fear that shows the limits of individual interpretation; the Church has nearly 2000 years of wisdom and experience, and it often surprises me that we think our small experience and 'research' can be put against that. But, as you say, we shall have to disagree in Christian humility and love.
,
This is another common misunderstanding. No, there is no sign in the minutes of the Council that anyone thought that Constantine was refounding the Church - he was simply presiding over a council to deal with Arianism. The Church had certainly been persecuted, but throughout it had struggled to retain right worship and right belief - that was what Nicaea was about. The doctrine of the Trinity was the developing understanding of the Church, which, as He had promised, survived even though the Gates of Hades were raised against it.
In 451 at Chalcedon, and again in 1054, there were splits within the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, with the Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics all claiming Apostolic succession; all of them have good claims to go back to Apostolic times; no other Church has such a claim that it can substantiate.
Of course modern men and women like to think they know better than the past, and they can decide what is and what is not Christianity, but the fact remains that the Church He founded still exists, and either one is part of it, or one is not. Of course, His love is so vast that at the last judgement only He knows who will be saved, so anyone who says that those outside the Apostolic Churches will not be saved says what s/he cannot be authorised to say; only God knows that.
But within the Orthodox Church is the fullness of the Christian faith and the deepest understanding of it. We live but a short while and know so little; the Church lives forever and knows so much more. Look into it like Peter Gillquist and see what you think - start with his book.
It is good of you to engage in this dialogue, and you do it in a true Christian spirit which shines through all your postings here.
Blessing be upon you,
Anglian
I have no desire to disuade you from your own faith or to offend (which I apologize for if I have), but since you asked me and obviously put time and thought into your question, I felt it only respectful to respond.
