Does Christianity Confuse the world is it broken?

[Light of the East]

The difffernt versions are just different translations when it comes to the Bible. Now why there are so many denominations has a lot to do with the persecution of the church in the early on. Truth was sort of lost in a way and revelations about hidden truth caused different denominations to just spout up over time. For example baptist discovered the importance of baptism and Methodist I believe healings or something like that. And yes this can be confusing for a person seeking God even for a Christian it can be

Baloney! The Church suffered persecution for 300+ years and stayed united. There were no denominations until the Protestant Rebellion which started with Luther.

Baptists discovered nothing of the sort. They have no idea what they are doing and rather than believe 1500 years of Christian praxis, they decided they were smarter than the Church and established something called "believer's baptism," which is both anti-covenantal in nature and had never before been practiced.

The only thing I do agree with you on is that this whole nasty mess called Christianity is utterly confusing in the state it is in. In the first 1500 years, the Church may have had its problems, its bad people, its arguments, and so forth, but you knew exactly what it was to be a Christian and exactly what it was you were to believe.

The reason it is so confusing today is that instead of listening to the Church, we have hundreds and thousands of "preachers" all teaching some esoteric version of the Christian faith which they have cooked up between their ears and which usually comes from A.) their own imagination B.) lack of knowledge of the Early Church or C.) demonic Christ-denying influence (Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Oneness Pentecostals).

It is also our own pride which keeps us from admitting that perhaps someone else, such as the first Christian leaders - the Early Fathers - actually are much more brilliant and knowledgeable than we could ever be.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

Dear soul, he is not looking for a fight, and neither am I. But to say things like that are first of all, against the CF rules. Secondly, they are inflammatory. If there are Catholics that WORSHIP Mary, they are doing so in spite of the teaching of the Church. You can read the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and all of the other OFFICIAL teachings of the Church and not find ANYTHING in there about worshiping Mary.

Thank you for the reply. This was dealt with and me

Dear soul, he is not looking for a fight, and neither am I. But to say things like that are first of all, against the CF rules. Secondly, they are inflammatory. If there are Catholics that WORSHIP Mary, they are doing so in spite of the teaching of the Church. You can read the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and all of the other OFFICIAL teachings of the Church and not find ANYTHING in there about worshiping Mary.

Fair enough

God bless you saint

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

As Monk Brendan said, I am not looking for a fight, and if my post seemed that way, I apologize.

Some things are stated in the Bible quite clearly, in what we call "literal interpretation," such as "Thou shalt not steal." No need to try to figure that one out. But there are other issues which are not quite as clear. Perhaps we could have a nice quiet discussion of the Marian issue away from this thread. I promise I am not a flame-thrower, and as a former Fundamentalist (who absolutely HATED the Catholic faith and its practices) I think I can bring in a certain perspective which you may not have considered yet.

I will start a private conversation. I hope you will join me.

God bless you.

Thank you for pm.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Baloney! The Church suffered persecution for 300+ years and stayed united. There were no denominations until the Protestant Rebellion which started with Luther.

Baptists discovered nothing of the sort. They have no idea what they are doing and rather than believe 1500 years of Christian praxis, they decided they were smarter than the Church and established something called "believer's baptism," which is both anti-covenantal in nature and had never before been practiced.

The only thing I do agree with you on is that this whole nasty mess called Christianity is utterly confusing in the state it is in. In the first 1500 years, the Church may have had its problems, its bad people, its arguments, and so forth, but you knew exactly what it was to be a Christian and exactly what it was you were to believe.

The reason it is so confusing today is that instead of listening to the Church, we have hundreds and thousands of "preachers" all teaching some esoteric version of the Christian faith which they have cooked up between their ears and which usually comes from A.) their own imagination B.) lack of knowledge of the Early Church or C.) demonic Christ-denying influence (Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Oneness Pentecostals).

It is also our own pride which keeps us from admitting that perhaps someone else, such as the first Christian leaders - the Early Fathers - actually are much more brilliant and knowledgeable than we could ever be.

I mean you are catholic so logically you will believe the catholic church is the true church while protestants or any other faith will believe otherwise.... so there's no point in me or you discussing this.

Also your reply just supports the OP... of how all these denominations have different views and it just confuses the unbeliever.

I can go up to him and say the catholic church was manifested around 300 AD to resolve persecution through inclusion of certian ideals, and you may go up to him and say it's the true church.

I may go up to someone and say Mary was just the mother of JESUS and a human when you may emphasize her more.

I may go up to someone and say JESUS had brothers and sisters when you may say otherwise.



YOu get the point? IF me and you if we were to argue over this we would just support the problem of multiple denominations. Such as Catholicism, Lutherism, PEntocostolism, baptist (also btw I didn't say baptist were correct in doctrine...just simply that they were closer to truth then the catholic church was and that early protestant churches were on the right track) etc.


Also just a tip when you're trying to convert someone bashing their faith straight up doesn't do much esepsicully online where it's twice as hard to persuade people. Trust me I used to do as you are doing now...and my success rate wasn't that good. That was before I entered ministry and learned more but still.

If you want to convert someone try being kind and relatable, try being someone they are comfortable talking to.

I mean I dont' go up to Catholics and randomly throw out how the church killed those who opposed the Earth is flat ideology or make a random joke about priest and kids. I go up to people i'm trying to convert and form relationships and slowly draw them in and it works. one more tip, know who you're trying to convert. I minister and I'm a musician... simply bashing my faith and faiths I support or like somewhat will not convince me to become catholic lol. Like maybe when I was just sitting in a apostolic church and not a part of it that would be enough but yeah. Knowing who you're dealing with helps a lot. Not to mention I didn't bash your faith.. in fact I didn't mention your faith anywhere in my initial comment so why turn around and bash mine? Is that really Christ like or respectful? Is a un Christ like vibe really what you're going for?

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Baloney! The Church suffered persecution for 300+ years and stayed united. There were no denominations until the Protestant Rebellion which started with Luther.

Baptists discovered nothing of the sort. They have no idea what they are doing and rather than believe 1500 years of Christian praxis, they decided they were smarter than the Church and established something called "believer's baptism," which is both anti-covenantal in nature and had never before been practiced.

The only thing I do agree with you on is that this whole nasty mess called Christianity is utterly confusing in the state it is in. In the first 1500 years, the Church may have had its problems, its bad people, its arguments, and so forth, but you knew exactly what it was to be a Christian and exactly what it was you were to believe.

The reason it is so confusing today is that instead of listening to the Church, we have hundreds and thousands of "preachers" all teaching some esoteric version of the Christian faith which they have cooked up between their ears and which usually comes from A.) their own imagination B.) lack of knowledge of the Early Church or C.) demonic Christ-denying influence (Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Oneness Pentecostals).

It is also our own pride which keeps us from admitting that perhaps someone else, such as the first Christian leaders - the Early Fathers - actually are much more brilliant and knowledgeable than we could ever be.

Also when a church has as much power as "the church" did logically there wouldn't be other anything else hanging around, a church that strong would ensure of that. It would do all it could to ensure it was the church and nothing else. Of course if you believe the church was based off the truth that was spread prior to its authority then that would be fine.

 

[Light of the East]

I mean you are catholic so logically you will believe the catholic church is the true church while protestants or any other faith will believe otherwise.... so there's no point in me or you discussing this.

I wasn't always Catholic. For the first 52 years of my life I was Protestant, with the last 25 before 2001 and my conversion being in very anti-Catholic assemblies. The study of Christian history shows that there was only one - ONE - Church which was led by the Apostles. That Church was called "katholicos" (universal) by St. Irenaeus in the beginning of the second century. It wasn't Roman, Coptic, Byzantine, or any other form we know now. It was simply universal, and continued to be so for the first 1000 years of the Christian faith. The fact is that you cannot find anywhere in Christian history of the first 1500 years any evidence of those particular dogma which make up Protestantism. It is a creation of men. If you can find any evidence, please let me know.

Also your reply just supports the OP... of how all these denominations have different views and it just confuses the unbeliever.

Which should show you and others that such chaos is not from the Lord. Do you not see a problem with how each and every denomination swears they are following the Bible alone, as guided by the Holy Spirit, and yet they all disagree with each other? Is this really the Holy Spirit?

I can go up to him and say the catholic church was manifested around 300 AD to resolve persecution through inclusion of certian ideals, and you may go up to him and say it's the true church.

Which, as I showed you in my first paragraph, is utter nonsense. Such thinking comes from things like Lorraine Boettner's nasty little book ROMAN CATHOLICISM, or the equally squalid THE TWO BABYLONS by Alexander Hislop. Both of these wretched excuses for writing were grasped upon by the anti-Catholics in Europe and America as "proof" that the Roman Catholic Church was some pagan invention. But as people began to investigate what was written, they found out, much to their embarrassment, that the books were filled with lies, historical distortions, and were just poorly written in their anti-Catholic rage.

I may go up to someone and say Mary was just the mother of JESUS and a human when you may emphasize her more.

And you would be wrong. Catholics have been trying for centuries to stop this nonsense about Mary and yet the lies still keep being produced. One wonders if men like John MacArthur have even read "Thou shalt not bear false witness."

I may go up to someone and say JESUS had brothers and sisters when you may say otherwise.

You get the point?

I do. And there are answers to the many objections that are out there. This is why we see a constant stream of Evangelical pastors entering the Church. They keep investigating and finding out that Protestantism has A.) no historical validation B.) is built upon shoddy hermeneutics and C.) cannot withstand close scrutiny. The latest of these converts was Hank Hanedegraff, the "Bible Answer Man" who studied himself right into the Orthodox faith.

IF me and you if we were to argue over this we would just support the problem of multiple denominations. Such as Catholicism, Lutherism, PEntocostolism, baptist (also btw I didn't say baptist were correct in doctrine...just simply that they were closer to truth then the catholic church was and that early protestant churches were on the right track) etc.

Sorry. Wrong. You have no proof from history that any Baptist, Lutheran, or other non-Orthodox form of worship and dogma existed in the first century. The Orthodox, however, have a real claim to doctrinal purity which goes back to the beginning.

Also just a tip when you're trying to convert someone bashing their faith straight up doesn't do much especially online where it's twice as hard to persuade people. Trust me I used to do as you are doing now...and my success rate wasn't that good. That was before I entered ministry and learned more but still.

If you want to convert someone try being kind and relatable, try being someone they are comfortable talking to.

I am kind. You should have seen me when I first joined the Church....pheeeeeew!!! I evangelized like the Fundamentalism out of which I came. You're right....it don't work well.

I mean I don't go up to Catholics and randomly throw out how the church killed those who opposed the Earth is flat ideology (proof, please!) or make a random joke about priest and kids. I go up to people i'm trying to convert and form relationships and slowly draw them in and it works. (It won't work on any Catholic or Orthodox who know their faith. The sad part about most of them is that they are ignorant of the foundation of what they believe. Thus, they are pretty easy pickin's. I know of one assembly in Hershey PA which is made up of about 70% former Catholics. The reason is simple - no knowledge of the faith or of Christian history.)

One more tip, know who you're trying to convert. I minister and I'm a musician... simply bashing my faith and faiths I support or like somewhat will not convince me to become catholic lol.

Understood.

Like maybe when I was just sitting in a apostolic church and not a part of it that would be enough but yeah. Knowing who you're dealing with helps a lot. Not to mention I didn't bash your faith.. in fact I didn't mention your faith anywhere in my initial comment so why turn around and bash mine? Is that really Christ like or respectful? Is a un Christ like vibe really what you're going for?

I'll go back and look to see if I did such a thing, but really, there is only one truth regarding the worship which God has given to the world. There aren't 10 or 20 truths about baptism....just one. Salvation has one truth, not many. When I was studying the Apostolic faith to try to discredit it, the truth therein actually converted me.

Anyway, thanks for the comments and insights.

Okay.....I went back and looked. I'm not seeing any "bashing." You know, pointing out a specific denomination and claiming that it is "of Satan" or the like. I made a point...there was unity until the Protestant Reformation. Yeah, I might have said it with a tad more tact, but is lack of tactfulness the same as bashing?

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

I mean you are catholic so logically you will believe the catholic church is the true church while protestants or any other faith will believe otherwise.... so there's no point in me or you discussing this.

I wasn't always Catholic. For the first 52 years of my life I was Protestant, with the last 25 before 2001 and my conversion being in very anti-Catholic assemblies. The study of Christian history shows that there was only one - ONE - Church which was led by the Apostles. That Church was called "katholicos" (universal) by St. Irenaeus in the beginning of the second century. It wasn't Roman, Coptic, Byzantine, or any other form we know now. It was simply universal, and continued to be so for the first 1000 years of the Christian faith. The fact is that you cannot find anywhere in Christian history of the first 1500 years any evidence of those particular dogma which make up Protestantism. It is a creation of men. If you can find any evidence, please let me know.

Also your reply just supports the OP... of how all these denominations have different views and it just confuses the unbeliever.

Which should show you and others that such chaos is not from the Lord. Do you not see a problem with how each and every denomination swears they are following the Bible alone, as guided by the Holy Spirit, and yet they all disagree with each other? Is this really the Holy Spirit?

I can go up to him and say the catholic church was manifested around 300 AD to resolve persecution through inclusion of certian ideals, and you may go up to him and say it's the true church.

Which, as I showed you in my first paragraph, is utter nonsense. Such thinking comes from things like Lorraine Boettner's nasty little book ROMAN CATHOLICISM, or the equally squalid THE TWO BABYLONS by Alexander Hislop. Both of these wretched excuses for writing were grasped upon by the anti-Catholics in Europe and America as "proof" that the Roman Catholic Church was some pagan invention. But as people began to investigate what was written, they found out, much to their embarrassment, that the books were filled with lies, historical distortions, and were just poorly written in their anti-Catholic rage.

I may go up to someone and say Mary was just the mother of JESUS and a human when you may emphasize her more.

And you would be wrong. Catholics have been trying for centuries to stop this nonsense about Mary and yet the lies still keep being produced. One wonders if men like John MacArthur have even read "Thou shalt not bear false witness."

I may go up to someone and say JESUS had brothers and sisters when you may say otherwise.

You get the point?

I do. And there are answers to the many objections that are out there. This is why we see a constant stream of Evangelical pastors entering the Church. They keep investigating and finding out that Protestantism has A.) no historical validation B.) is built upon shoddy hermeneutics and C.) cannot withstand close scrutiny. The latest of these converts was Hank Hanedegraff, the "Bible Answer Man" who studied himself right into the Orthodox faith.

IF me and you if we were to argue over this we would just support the problem of multiple denominations. Such as Catholicism, Lutherism, PEntocostolism, baptist (also btw I didn't say baptist were correct in doctrine...just simply that they were closer to truth then the catholic church was and that early protestant churches were on the right track) etc.

Sorry. Wrong. You have no proof from history that any Baptist, Lutheran, or other non-Orthodox form of worship and dogma existed in the first century. The Orthodox, however, have a real claim to doctrinal purity which goes back to the beginning.

Also just a tip when you're trying to convert someone bashing their faith straight up doesn't do much especially online where it's twice as hard to persuade people. Trust me I used to do as you are doing now...and my success rate wasn't that good. That was before I entered ministry and learned more but still.

If you want to convert someone try being kind and relatable, try being someone they are comfortable talking to.

I am kind. You should have seen me when I first joined the Church....pheeeeeew!!! I evangelized like the Fundamentalism out of which I came. You're right....it don't work well.

I mean I don't go up to Catholics and randomly throw out how the church killed those who opposed the Earth is flat ideology (proof, please!) or make a random joke about priest and kids. I go up to people i'm trying to convert and form relationships and slowly draw them in and it works. (It won't work on any Catholic or Orthodox who know their faith. The sad part about most of them is that they are ignorant of the foundation of what they believe. Thus, they are pretty easy pickin's. I know of one assembly in Hershey PA which is made up of about 70% former Catholics. The reason is simple - no knowledge of the faith or of Christian history.)

One more tip, know who you're trying to convert. I minister and I'm a musician... simply bashing my faith and faiths I support or like somewhat will not convince me to become catholic lol.

Understood.

Like maybe when I was just sitting in a apostolic church and not a part of it that would be enough but yeah. Knowing who you're dealing with helps a lot. Not to mention I didn't bash your faith.. in fact I didn't mention your faith anywhere in my initial comment so why turn around and bash mine? Is that really Christ like or respectful? Is a un Christ like vibe really what you're going for?

I'll go back and look to see if I did such a thing, but really, there is only one truth regarding the worship which God has given to the world. There aren't 10 or 20 truths about baptism....just one. Salvation has one truth, not many. When I was studying the Apostolic faith to try to discredit it, the truth therein actually converted me.

Anyway, thanks for the comments and insights.

Okay.....I went back and looked. I'm not seeing any "bashing." You know, pointing out a specific denomination and claiming that it is "of Satan" or the like. I made a point...there was unity until the Protestant Reformation. Yeah, I might have said it with a tad more tact, but is lack of tactfulness the same as bashing?

Im apostolic... you reply went against the pentocostol faith and apostolic is about the same as pentecostal almost. And calling it an imagination or heresy without scripture or anything to support such a notion is bashing and a opinion and doesn't convince me to convert. It's like if I were to go to someone and say they are going to hell... but not privide a biblical reason as to why. Also catholism is just another denomination is the point. Also I'm not sure what your long history in a Protestant church has to do with me although it's interesting. Lastly I never said any of the Protestant faiths came first just that they were onto something that was lost from the first church and churches established after that before the Catholic Church. Also about the Catholic Church killing people who pushed the earth is round ideology that's something you learn as early as grade school.. at least in the south. It's commonly accepted here. A famous guy who pushed the ideology of earth is round... his name starts with a C was killed by the church for it for example

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

I mean you are catholic so logically you will believe the catholic church is the true church while protestants or any other faith will believe otherwise.... so there's no point in me or you discussing this.

I wasn't always Catholic. For the first 52 years of my life I was Protestant, with the last 25 before 2001 and my conversion being in very anti-Catholic assemblies. The study of Christian history shows that there was only one - ONE - Church which was led by the Apostles. That Church was called "katholicos" (universal) by St. Irenaeus in the beginning of the second century. It wasn't Roman, Coptic, Byzantine, or any other form we know now. It was simply universal, and continued to be so for the first 1000 years of the Christian faith. The fact is that you cannot find anywhere in Christian history of the first 1500 years any evidence of those particular dogma which make up Protestantism. It is a creation of men. If you can find any evidence, please let me know.

Also your reply just supports the OP... of how all these denominations have different views and it just confuses the unbeliever.

Which should show you and others that such chaos is not from the Lord. Do you not see a problem with how each and every denomination swears they are following the Bible alone, as guided by the Holy Spirit, and yet they all disagree with each other? Is this really the Holy Spirit?

I can go up to him and say the catholic church was manifested around 300 AD to resolve persecution through inclusion of certian ideals, and you may go up to him and say it's the true church.

Which, as I showed you in my first paragraph, is utter nonsense. Such thinking comes from things like Lorraine Boettner's nasty little book ROMAN CATHOLICISM, or the equally squalid THE TWO BABYLONS by Alexander Hislop. Both of these wretched excuses for writing were grasped upon by the anti-Catholics in Europe and America as "proof" that the Roman Catholic Church was some pagan invention. But as people began to investigate what was written, they found out, much to their embarrassment, that the books were filled with lies, historical distortions, and were just poorly written in their anti-Catholic rage.

I may go up to someone and say Mary was just the mother of JESUS and a human when you may emphasize her more.

And you would be wrong. Catholics have been trying for centuries to stop this nonsense about Mary and yet the lies still keep being produced. One wonders if men like John MacArthur have even read "Thou shalt not bear false witness."

I may go up to someone and say JESUS had brothers and sisters when you may say otherwise.

You get the point?

I do. And there are answers to the many objections that are out there. This is why we see a constant stream of Evangelical pastors entering the Church. They keep investigating and finding out that Protestantism has A.) no historical validation B.) is built upon shoddy hermeneutics and C.) cannot withstand close scrutiny. The latest of these converts was Hank Hanedegraff, the "Bible Answer Man" who studied himself right into the Orthodox faith.

IF me and you if we were to argue over this we would just support the problem of multiple denominations. Such as Catholicism, Lutherism, PEntocostolism, baptist (also btw I didn't say baptist were correct in doctrine...just simply that they were closer to truth then the catholic church was and that early protestant churches were on the right track) etc.

Sorry. Wrong. You have no proof from history that any Baptist, Lutheran, or other non-Orthodox form of worship and dogma existed in the first century. The Orthodox, however, have a real claim to doctrinal purity which goes back to the beginning.

Also just a tip when you're trying to convert someone bashing their faith straight up doesn't do much especially online where it's twice as hard to persuade people. Trust me I used to do as you are doing now...and my success rate wasn't that good. That was before I entered ministry and learned more but still.

If you want to convert someone try being kind and relatable, try being someone they are comfortable talking to.

I am kind. You should have seen me when I first joined the Church....pheeeeeew!!! I evangelized like the Fundamentalism out of which I came. You're right....it don't work well.

I mean I don't go up to Catholics and randomly throw out how the church killed those who opposed the Earth is flat ideology (proof, please!) or make a random joke about priest and kids. I go up to people i'm trying to convert and form relationships and slowly draw them in and it works. (It won't work on any Catholic or Orthodox who know their faith. The sad part about most of them is that they are ignorant of the foundation of what they believe. Thus, they are pretty easy pickin's. I know of one assembly in Hershey PA which is made up of about 70% former Catholics. The reason is simple - no knowledge of the faith or of Christian history.)

One more tip, know who you're trying to convert. I minister and I'm a musician... simply bashing my faith and faiths I support or like somewhat will not convince me to become catholic lol.

Understood.

Like maybe when I was just sitting in a apostolic church and not a part of it that would be enough but yeah. Knowing who you're dealing with helps a lot. Not to mention I didn't bash your faith.. in fact I didn't mention your faith anywhere in my initial comment so why turn around and bash mine? Is that really Christ like or respectful? Is a un Christ like vibe really what you're going for?

I'll go back and look to see if I did such a thing, but really, there is only one truth regarding the worship which God has given to the world. There aren't 10 or 20 truths about baptism....just one. Salvation has one truth, not many. When I was studying the Apostolic faith to try to discredit it, the truth therein actually converted me.

Anyway, thanks for the comments and insights.

Okay.....I went back and looked. I'm not seeing any "bashing." You know, pointing out a specific denomination and claiming that it is "of Satan" or the like. I made a point...there was unity until the Protestant Reformation. Yeah, I might have said it with a tad more tact, but is lack of tactfulness the same as bashing?

And about converting not working with Catholics who know their faith... I have yet to meet a young one that knows his faith and has a good biblical knowledge to support it. Of course you expect a saint your age for example to know it... but it's sad when the younger or those in there 20s teens or 30s in a faith don't know it anymore then young people of another faith know the Bible. Like some I've met (this isn't just with young Catholics) can't even quote at least 4 scriptures or present the Bible. They know their saints or whatever and church history enough but when it comes to the Bible it's just yeah. Now with orthodox idk... I have yet to meet one so far in person here in Texas at least yet

 

[Light of the East]

Lastly I never said any of the Protestant faiths came first just that they were onto something that was lost from the first church and churches established after that before the Catholic Church.

Just to muddy the waters a bit, when you speak of the Catholic Church, I assume you are speaking of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Church is not the Catholic Church. It is one of 23 independent, sui juris churches in the communion which is known as "The Catholic Church."

And yes, the Roman Church has a very colored history to it, especially after the schism of 1054. This is why I continue to identify myself as Orthodox who happens to be in communion with Rome. I am, however, looking into and praying about full conversion to the Orthodox faith rather than being simply "in communion" with Rome.

Your post regarding "something that was lost" from the first Church is kind of typical of all the Protestant assemblies when they are asked about why they exist. It is as if they have to justify their existence by saying that the Church was paganized in the fourth century and they alone and their beliefs were the true "underground church." Sorry, not buying that at all. Christ promised to protect His Church from errors. There is only one theology which goes all the way back to the Apostles in an uncorrupted form - Holy Orthodoxy. The Roman Church can claim what it wants - they have added a number of heterodox beliefs to their theology over the last millennium.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Just to muddy the waters a bit, when you speak of the Catholic Church, I assume you are speaking of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Church is not the Catholic Church. It is one of 23 independent, sui juris churches in the communion which is known as "The Catholic Church."

And yes, the Roman Church has a very colored history to it, especially after the schism of 1054. This is why I continue to identify myself as Orthodox who happens to be in communion with Rome. I am, however, looking into and praying about full conversion to the Orthodox faith rather than being simply "in communion" with Rome.

Your post regarding "something that was lost" from the first Church is kind of typical of all the Protestant assemblies when they are asked about why they exist. It is as if they have to justify their existence by saying that the Church was paganized in the fourth century and they alone and their beliefs were the true "underground church." Sorry, not buying that at all. Christ promised to protect His Church from errors. There is only one theology which goes all the way back to the Apostles in an uncorrupted form - Holy Orthodoxy. The Roman Church can claim what it wants - they have added a number of heterodox beliefs to their theology over the last millennium.

1. You're right I was referring to the Roman Catholic church specifically should have clarified that.

2. Well whether you believe something was lost or not... it is rather conclusive that the beliefs that were established during the church were not commonly held prior to its existence. There are even records that indicate that christians pre the catholic church were mostly oneness/semi arian christians and that a lot of the teachings they had were actually burned by the church. Catholics in the past who have actually come to this conclusion simply just make the claim that those christians prior were mislead though.


3. I don't identify myself as a protestant, apostolic just means based off the apostles doctrine nothing else, we don't have a traditional authoritative thing we go by it's just bible based and based off the teachings of the apostles.

What you should know is that protestant just refers to a church that was manifested by protesting "the church" so the apostolic faith which re manifested (which of course I believe is based off the apostles doctrine and the bible so existed since the church of acts which is why remanifested is there) itself in bulk in the 1900's wouldn't fit that.


4. I don't know that much about Orthodoxy so I can't say much about that.

 

[cafefan374]

If anything, so many denominations within Christianity shows that we are flawed as human beings. That said, it doesn't mean that we can't be united via revivals and the like. Some denominations use instruments, some don't. Some believe baptism is a necessity, others do it out of courtesy. Some scriptures are emphasized more than others. Even at that, it doesn't mean that Christ can't be at the center.

 

[Albion]

That is true, but it only amounts to putting the emphasis on what the different denominations, etc hold in common, and it usually only works to the extent of fellowship.

If there is an attempt to achieve "organic unity", i.e. an actual merger of different church bodies, it's almost impossible to accomplish without reconciling different and opposing doctrines, which in turn are what they are because of different interpretations of scripture and church history.

 

[cafefan374]

That probably will not happen until we are in Heaven. Truth be told. That said, when it comes to revivals, bible studies, or other forms are worship. We can put aside our difference for that hour or two.

 

[Albion]

I dont disagree with that, but if you back up to post 101 you will see the idea of organic unity or institutional unity being made the preferred goal. It was in response to that line of thought that I was offering a word of caution.

Joint Bible studies or an hour of setting aside the differences between various denominations wont go anywhere towards meeting that sort of ideal. They are good in themselves, but any attempt to reach institutional church unity will not easily succeed, and thats because the issues that divide are a matter of Scriptural interpretation. Someone had suggested that they weren't of that level of seriousness; but in reality they are.

 

[buzuxi02]

Most of Christianity is just western enlightenment era nonsense. In a few generations when people no longer identify it as a cultural label things may change, but as of now Christianity is simply synonym for American and EU values.