Why is it so hard to find historical truths in the modern churches?

[grandvizier1006]

My story is similar. I was studying to be a layreader in a very liberal Anglican parish when I encountered conflicting traditions between so-called "traditional churches" as well as traditions that seemed to be in conflict the scriptures. At the time I thought I could find the "correct" tradition with research, reading the fathers, etc. I attended a Roman church for a while but the Marian and Papal dogmas really freaked me out. I never swam the Tiber. Thankfully a local Eastern Orthodox church was in the area and they set me on the right path, sorta. I would attend liturgy on Sunday's and most people would just ignore me, that's fine. It was a Greek parish so it was made clear I could attend but never really "fit in." The one thing they did was direct me to read scripture, read a good translation of scripture and stay with it. So I did, and you know what, the earliest record of the church is found in scripture. If you want to know what the Apostles taught, what was believed, how the early Christians practiced their faith look to the scriptures.



This is just unsubstantiated nonsense. Let's not forget Humanism, which lead to the period known as the Enlightenment, was birthed in and around Rome. The Enlightenment spurred on the idea that people are completely autonomous from God making each man his own "pope." This is not what the Reformers taught or believed. Sure, you could find elements in the Radical Reformers (Anabaptists, Mennonites, etc) but not in the mainline Reformers like Luther, Zwingli or Calvin.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
PS: A good way to get a birds eye view of church history is by listening to Communio Sanctorum.

I meant that their teachings led to that, not that they believed in Humanism.

 

[Job8]

Honestly, the way Protestants love to emphasize their "freedom" from church regulations and "the priesthood of all believers" stuff has really messed up the faith.

Let's examine your comments further:

(1) What are "church regulations"? A true Christian church must be organized and function according to the New Testament pattern already provided. And how can that possibly be a bad thing, since it has God's stamp of approval, and apostolic authority? On the other hand, man-made church regulations count for nothing.

(2) And how can "the priesthood of believers" possibly mess up the faith since God declares all believers are king-priests? Which means every Christian has a responsibility to function as a New Testament priest by offering spiritual sacrifices which are pleasing to God, and living as a holy priest. What has messed up Christianity is the suppression of this precious Bible truth and the installation of a clergy-laity divide which is unscriptural. Man-made priests violate the teaching of the New Testament.

When you let everyone decide what to believed you open up the door for atheism, agnosticism, and worst of all, some stupid watered-down faith that embraces homosexuality and leftist talking points.

You are attributing the wrong cause for the evils that exist in Christendom. You are forgetting (or may not even be aware) that the virus of THEOLOGICAL LIBERALISM infected the seminaries, Bible schools, and preachers since the 18th century and destroyed (1) faith in the Bible as the Word of God, (2) faith in the power of the Gospel to bring men to salvation, and (3) faith in Christ as THE ONLY WAY, TRUTH, AND LIFE. Thus the mainline denominations went downhill, people were disillusioned with False Christianity, and Satan made sure that these disaffected ones would turn to atheism, agnosticism, socialism etc. Who is promoting the homosexual deviant agenda? The political liberals in the western countries whose churches succumbed to theological liberalism, and who therefore do not regard the Bible as the final authority. They are basically humanists.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to be able to read the Bible for myself and not have to worry about a bunch of Old Testament style regulations or elaborate rituals, but I don't like how people in this society have misused our freedom in Christ to just abandon everything.

Then you should be hopping mad at the theological and political liberals, not at Christians who know their true liberty in Christ and do not abuse it. BTW society in general has no freedom in Christ, since they are already in bondage to Satan and self.

 

[grandvizier1006]

Let's examine your comments further:

(1) What are "church regulations"? A true Christian church must be organized and function according to the New Testament pattern already provided. And how can that possibly be a bad thing, since it has God's stamp of approval, and apostolic authority? On the other hand, man-made church regulations count for nothing.

(2) And how can "the priesthood of believers" possibly mess up the faith since God declares all believers are king-priests? Which means every Christian has a responsibility to function as a New Testament priest by offering spiritual sacrifices which are pleasing to God, and living as a holy priest. What has messed up Christianity is the suppression of this precious Bible truth and the installation of a clergy-laity divide which is unscriptural. Man-made priests violate the teaching of the New Testament.


You are attributing the wrong cause for the evils that exist in Christendom. You are forgetting (or may not even be aware) that the virus of THEOLOGICAL LIBERALISM infected the seminaries, Bible schools, and preachers since the 18th century and destroyed (1) faith in the Bible as the Word of God, (2) faith in the power of the Gospel to bring men to salvation, and (3) faith in Christ as THE ONLY WAY, TRUTH, AND LIFE. Thus the mainline denominations went downhill, people were disillusioned with False Christianity, and Satan made sure that these disaffected ones would turn to atheism, agnosticism, socialism etc. Who is promoting the homosexual deviant agenda? The political liberals in the western countries whose churches succumbed to theological liberalism, and who therefore do not regard the Bible as the final authority. They are basically humanists.


Then you should be hopping mad at the theological and political liberals, not at Christians who know their true liberty in Christ and do not abuse it. BTW society in general has no freedom in Christ, since they are already in bondage to Satan and self.

You're probably right, but I'm trying my best to forgive and love the liberals, despite their errors.

 

[Dionysiou]

Great responses, nothing i can be conclusive on yet. There really seems to be no easy way of finding the truth (which sounds so wrong to say but it's happening anyway.) Extremely frustrating, I don't know why God doesn't just tell us all the facts outright!

 

[Erose]

Great responses, nothing i can be conclusive on yet. There really seems to be no easy way of finding the truth (which sounds so wrong to say but it's happening anyway.) Extremely frustrating, I don't know why God doesn't just tell us all the facts outright!

Dionysiou, go back to the early Fathers, St. Ignatius, Barnabas, St. Justin, etc. and read them first, in light of the New Testament, afterwards, move forward and you will see a line of Truth.

As someone else said, the early Fathers aren't infallible, but they are a witness. A witness to what was passed down to them. Let them show you the way as they show so many others the way to Christ.

Concerning knowing the truth. I don't believe what you have stated. I believe that if you open yourself up to being led by the Holy Spirit (Remember what Christ promised, "knock and it shall be opened; ask and you shall receive") He will lead you into all truth. But you MUST be opened to being led by the Holy Spirit. That is the key, no matter where He leads you.

 

[Shane R]

Great responses, nothing i can be conclusive on yet. There really seems to be no easy way of finding the truth (which sounds so wrong to say but it's happening anyway.) Extremely frustrating, I don't know why God doesn't just tell us all the facts outright!

Because knowing the facts is not enough - there are five levels of learning. Some of the facts could not be grasped or expressed in ways our minds would comprehend.

 

[ALoveDivine]

It was reading the early church fathers that led me out of Protestantism. It is true that many of the fathers differ with each other on certain points, but there are some points of unanimity. The main one I noticed is the centrality of the Eucharist in Christian life and worship, and the understanding of the Eucharist as truly the body and blood of Christ. In fact, one could discern the true church by the Eucharist. If Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Iraneaus, John Crysostom or any other of the fathers walked into a mega church, the word "church" wouldn't even enter their minds. They'd probably run away within seconds. A "sermon" was never the center of worship, it was always the Eucharist.

It was this centrality of the Eucharist in historical Christianity that started me down a road that led me back to the Catholic Church, which after thorough study I am convinced is the modern day continuation of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church as proclaimed in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. Most of the aversion I had to the church as a Protestant was rooted in misunderstandings about what the church actually teaches. To study Christian history is to cease to be Protestant.

 

[JM]

Blah. As I posted before, I was attending St. Nektarios Orthodox church and studying the fathers with them. I ceased to believe in the concept of "tradition" as binding because tradition is not unified. Each State church / governing body differs on "Holy Tradition," including which canons of the ecumenical councils are binding, so it is a very bias reading of the early fathers that leads to traditionalism.

To study the fathers, as if they were unified, is to cease to believe in "Holy Tradition."

 

[Erose]

I've seen very little difference in the teachings of the Fathers except in practices, and emphasis. Granted I understand that Orthodox at times can get extreme in equating traditional practices with doctrine.

 

[JM]

I've seen very little difference in the teachings of the Fathers except in practices, and emphasis. Granted I understand that Orthodox at times can get extreme in equating traditional practices with doctrine.

As a Roman Catholic you must realize that your church ignores some of the Canons of the ecumenical councils and has other "ecumenical" councils that other traditional bodies ignore. Tradition is subjective.

 

[Willie T]

I come from a born again background but I am having serious doubts about my chosen path.

For starters, I am actually quite annoyed that nobody bothered to tell me about the Early church Fathers. 20 years in a protestant setting and not once did I hear their names mentioned. The implications of their views and influence are enormous given the circumstances. How can they be so easily cast aside in good conscience? I made mention of them to friends within my church and they also had no idea who they were.

I was taught that Catholicism and orthodoxy were nothing more than religious garbage. Worshiping Mary and other weird stuff, with no foundation in truth. The more i come to understand the historical significance of these denominations, the more i feel like it is I who was lied to. It's like a caveman approaches a king, and somehow believes himself more qualified and capable to run the kingdom. There's a huge gap in compiled knowledge and progression. I mean how would Christianity have even survived without the efforts of these traditions? How could these men be trusted to compile the bible as we know it and yet we ignore what they have to say about it? How can they be bringers of truth and false witnesses at the same time? I say this because the writings i read strike me as catholic/orthodox. Somehow Christians today think they have a deeper understanding of scripture and are closer to the Truth than the past was. It is more logical to me, that the modern day churches are at the tail end of the game "chinese whispers", not the other way around. It always bothered me how many denominations there were but in light of all this it makes perfect sense.

i'll admit, i have only begun to read the volumes of stuff that's out there (previously i was told only to read the bible) yet i can't see how i will be able to proceed in the born again setting should this continue. Honestly, i don't even want to leave the modern day church, it's comfortable and pleases my flesh. I just want the truth, wherever it is.

Well, you are on the right forum to bathe you in traditional thinking, if that is your desire.

 

[Erose]

As a Roman Catholic you must realize that your church ignores some of the Canons of the ecumenical councils and has other "ecumenical" councils that other traditional bodies ignore. Tradition is subjective.

You also have to look at the canons themselves. There are various types of canons such as dogmatic, judicial, practice, etc. The dogmatic one are the ones that are unchangable and must be adhered to; the judicial and practice canons are not dogmatic and these can change over time. The dogmatic canons are easy to recognize by their usage of ...let them(him) be anathema. Only these are unchangable.

 

[Erose]

I'm surprised that your time in Orthodoxy, that you didn't learn or were taught the difference between Sacred Tradition (doctrine) and church tradition (practice). Sacred Tradition is unchangable, while church tradition is, albeit at times it seems that it isn't.

For example the belief that only men can be ordained as deacons, priests, and bishops is a doctrinal practice, and as such can never be altered; while let's say the RC practice that only single men can become priests (under normal situations as there are exceptions to this rule) can be changed if the Church determines to do so, even though it most probably never will.

 

[Albion]

I'm surprised that your time in Orthodoxy, that you didn't learn or were taught the difference between Sacred Tradition (doctrine) and church tradition (practice). Sacred Tradition is unchangable, while church tradition is, albeit at times it seems that it isn't.

As I read JM's posts, it seemed clear to me that he understood the difference very well.

It's not fair to those who point to the inconsistency and incompleteness in the record of what we have from the "Early Church Fathers" to say (as is routinely done) that they either don't know the difference between traditions and Tradition OR that they don't know the difference between church decisions that are changeable and those that (whether or not they've been changed) are called unchangeable by the institutional church.

 

[Erose]

Why isn't it fair to point that out? If the poster showed a lack of understanding it is appropriate to educate. Just because you disagree with the view point, doesn't make it wrong to do. I don't know JM and have not seen that many of his posts; so I don't have a knowledge of what he/she does or does not know. It isn't obvious as you claim from his/her posts in this thread that he knows the difference, and quite honestly it is obvious that he/she really doesn't know the difference.

If he has an example of dogmatic inconsistency then point it out. General assertions will receive general responses.

 

[Albion]

Why isn't it fair to point that out?

If that were indeed JM's view, it would not be unfair. But there's nothing in his posts that would suggest any such misunderstanding.

If the poster showed a lack of understanding it is appropriate to educate.

Then let's save it for such an occasion.

I don't know JM and have not seen that many of his posts; so I don't have a knowledge of what he/she does or does not know.

But that's not what the following says--"you didn't learn or were taught the difference...."

 

[Erose]

If that were indeed JM's view, it would not be unfair. But there's nothing in his posts that would suggest it.

Ok what post did he/she display the knowledge that you claim he did?

Then let's save it for a time when someone comes along who actually does show a lack of understanding.

Didn't have to, already done.

All the more reason not to overreach. It's not as though you "raised the issue" with him, you know. Rather, you came right out and said (among other things) "you didn't learn or were taught the difference...."

Ok fair point. I could have used more tack here.

 

[Albion]

Hi, Erose. I was reluctant to say what I did, and I don't want to argue with you. I just thought that he had explained his position pretty clearly, so if there's a rebuttal, that's OK, but not a "you don't understand" kind of thing.

 

[Erose]

Hi, Erose. I was reluctant to say what I did, and I don't want to argue with you. I just thought that he had explained his position pretty clearly, so if there's a rebuttal, that's OK, but not a "you don't understand" kind of thing.

I understand.

 

[JM]

I do understand the difference between doctrine and practice, however, I am responding on a tablet and my thumbs can't handle typing out long replies.

Happy Thanksgiving.

jm