A Convicted Evangelical (Church of Christ)

[reyjacobs]

So what? It is childish like Jewish worship (God commanded them to use it), is not a answer that sounds universal…Jews and pagans use them so we shouldn’t that sounds more like temporary tradition.

So the Jews stopped using them? No, I agree with you. Justin’s reasoning on this point is flimsy. That’s really my point actually. A lot of the reasoning used by the church fathers looks flimsy to moderns…in fact, just about all of it. So if you’re going to have two churches (the Catholic church and the Restoration Movement churches of Christ) duel it out on the basis of which one follows the church fathers better…nothing good is going to come from that argument.

 

[reyjacobs]

And churches of Christ would forbid a sho’fa to be used in the worship services.

I doubt that. Law is only made to ban things that people might ACTUALLY do, not hypotheticals that would probably never happen.

And, I am currently in the church of Christ, so it’s not hypocritical for me.

And when I was in the church of Christ I bet I could have brought in a shofar for my sermon on some passage in Exodus or whatever and blown it right there in the pulpit as a demonstration of what a shofar sounded like without anyone condemning it as musical instruments. Because there is nothing musical about an “instrument” that produces one tone and can’t be used to make a melody, and that essentially was only used to alert the troops for war or announce fast days.

 

[CopticChristian]

Hello all,

Thanks for all of the posts and for challenging me to be a better thinker. Since there are many responses, as one member has noted, I will be concocting my rebuttals offline in a Word document and then posting them when time permits. This way, I won’t get so many responses before I adequately address certain individuals.

For now, I leave you all with this.

Through my scan of some of the rebuttals, many have accused me of prooftexting. One individual brought up birth control and concluded that because the Church of Christ view does not (or so he claims) line up with the ECF’s, then we cannot be the true church.

However, the use of choirs and instruments in the assembly of Catholic Churches flies against the ECF’s as well. In fact, the first instrument wasn’t used in the NT church until the 7th century by a Roman Catholic. Note that the EO have in large part retained the Acapella method of singing.

---

Pertinent quotes

Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Although Josephus tells of the wonderful effects produced in the Temple by the use of instruments, the first Christians were of too spiritual a fibre to substitute lifeless instruments for or to use them to accompany the human voice. Clement of Alexandria severely condemns the use of instruments even at Christian banquets. St. Chrysostum sharply contrasts the customs of the Christians when they had full freedom with those of the Jews of the Old Testament.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, pg. 648-652.)

“For almost a **thousand years **Gregorian chant, **without any instrumental or harmonic addition **was the only music used in connection with the liturgy. The organ, in its primitive and rude form, was the first, and for a long time the sole, instrument used to accompany the chant…. The church has never encouraged and at most only tolerated the use of instruments. She enjoins in the ‘Caeremonials Episcoporum’, - that permission for their use should first be obtained from the ordinary. She holds up as her ideal the unaccompanied chant, and polyphonic, a-capella style. The Sistene Chapel has not even an organ.”" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, pg. 657-688.)

Aquinas:

“Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to Judaize.” (Thomas Aquinas, Bingham’s Antiquities, Vol. 3, page 137)

Chrysostom:

“David formerly sang songs, also today we sing hymns. He had a lyre with lifeless strings, the church has a lyre with living strings. Our tongues are the strings of the lyre with a different tone indeed but much more in accordance with piety. Here there is no need for the cithara, or for stretched strings, or for the plectrum, or for art, or for any instrument; but, if you like, you may yourself become a cithara, mortifying the members of the flesh and making a full harmony of mind and body. For when the flesh no longer lusts against the Spirit, but has submitted to its orders and has been led at length into the best and most admirable path, then will you create a spiritual melody.” (Chrysostom, 347-407, Exposition of Psalms 41, (381-398 A.D.) Source Readings in Music History, ed. O. Strunk, W. W. Norton and Co.: New York, 1950, pg. 70.)

Eusebius:

“Of old at the time those of the circumcision were worshipping with symbols and types it was not inappropriate to send up hymns to God with the psalterion and cithara and to do this on Sabbath days… We render our hymn with a living psalterion and a living cithara with spiritual songs. The unison voices of Christians would be more acceptable to God than any musical instrument. Accordingly in all the churches of God, united in soul and attitude, with one mind and in agreement of faith and piety we send up a unison melody in the words of the Psalms.” (commentary on Psalms 91:2-3)

---

Very interesting to say the least. How can the RCC claim to follow the unanimous consent of the Fathers in birth control and fly against a unanimous view for nearly 1000 years in terms of acapella worship? The sources are telling. (See bible.ca/H-music.htm, where all of my quotes were pulled from).

If individuals in this forum can conclude that the Church of Christ isn’t the true church because of a contradiction with the ECF’s on birth control, than the logical extension is that the RCC can’t be the true church because they contradict the ECF’s on non-instrumental worship. Props to the EOC for staying true to the early sources and NT. Of course, I would side with the EOC in terms of denying papal infallibility, affirming baptism by immersion, and making belief in the Immaculate Conception optional.

Hmmmm, two churches both claiming to be apostolic and yet coming to contradicting doctrinal claims. One believes in papal infallibility, one expressly denies it; one uses choirs and instruments, the other in most instances refuses; one holds that the Immaculate Conception is an infallible teaching, the other believes it to be a matter of opinion; one baptizes infants by pouring; the other by immersion.

In fact, Bishop Kallistos Ware has a hard time reconciling pouring with immersion:
He writes: "Many Orthodox are disturbed by the fact that Western Christendom, abandoning the primitive practice of Baptism by immersion, is now content to pour a little water over the candidate’s forehead, or even to smear some slight moisture on the forehead without pouring any water at all…there is no doubts about the true Orthodox teaching: immersion is essential (except in emergencies), for if there is no immersion the correspondence between outward sign and inward meaning is lost, and the symbolism of the sacrament is overthrown…Baptism by infusion (when the water is merely poured over part of the body) is permitted in special cases, but Baptism by sprinkling or smearing is quite simply not real Baptism at all " (277-78)

The point that I’m trying to make is that the EOC and Church of Christ would side together against the RCC in terms of acapella music, baptism by immersion, and denial of papal infallibility. And yet whenever I cite quotes from the Fathers, you dismiss my contentions because you do not consider the Church of Christ to be apostolic. Well fine, deal with them from the perspective of the EOC. Tell me which of the apostolic churches who comes to contradicting conclusions about doctrine is the True Church. One is forced to conclude that at least one of these churches has departed from the fullness of the faith, something one individual in a previous post considered blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and I might add, an impossibility.

But we see from history that an “apostolic church” can in fact drift away from the apostolic teachings. And if one can “apostolic” church can drift, then logic implies that the other can too. You can’t have it both ways.

The following argument builds on itself:

1. The RCC confers apostolic continuity on both themselves and on the Eastern Orthodox.
2. Both churches consider only themselves to contain the fullness of the faith.
3. Since 2) contains a contradicting assertion, they cannot both be true. One of the apostolic churches has drifted from the apostolic teaching.
4. If it is possible for one apostolic church to drift, then it is possible for the other to drift as well.
5. I conclude that both have in fact drifted in certain areas.
6. Enter Church of Christ
7. Here I am

You are blinded by your beliefs. I stopped reading when you compared birth control with music. When was the last time music caused the death of a child or interfered with the natural order of procreation. You may have the scales fall from your eyes. You are lost.

You have yet to provide the list of ECF you say that support your view or the NT that supports your view.

 

[bwmnstar]

You are blinded by your beliefs. I stopped reading when you compared birth control with music. When was the last time music caused the death of a child or interfered with the natural order of procreation. You may have the scales fall from your eyes. You are lost.

You have yet to provide the list of ECF you say that support your view or the NT that supports your view.

Forget the music friend. Answer the argument. No one has responded to my claims as of yet. By claims I mean the last 7 points as well as the preceding argument, which has (in large part) nothing to do with music.

Blessings, Pat

 

[CopticChristian]

Forget the music friend. Answer the argument. No one has responded to my claims as of yet. By claims I mean the last 7 points as well as the preceding argument, which has (in large part) nothing to do with music.

Blessings, Pat

Pat,

You somehow believe that your question needs to be answered and that is the only focus of this post. You stated that you read the ECF and the NT to be convicted. If you believe that you control this conversation then have a good day. The discussion has less to do with what you want and what the post says. Provide your list of ECF that formed your convictions and the NT that supports your convictions.

I forget what I forget and I answer what I answer…

I wait…

 

[Reuben_J]

1. The RCC confers apostolic continuity on both themselves and on the Eastern Orthodox.

From your posts, and perhaps the foundation of your argument, you seem to pit us against the Orthodox. There is not much difference between us and them in term of belief but what separates us more is that we are not in communion with each other.

The term RCC is not the appropriate usage, if you mean the Roman Church, the Latin Rite is. I use Roman Catholic merely to differentiate it from the many Catholics here who are not Roman. Latin Rite is one of the twenty four rites that are in communion with the Pope. You would be more precise if you use the term Catholic as that denotes the Catholic Church of which the Roman Church a part of.

The Orthodox Church can trace their founders to the apostles and they had never left them. Thus they still have the apostolic succession. What about you? To which apostle can you trace your church to? As for the present Protestant churches, they left the mother Catholic Church through reformation and thus relinquish the uninterrupted line of apostolic succession.

1. Both churches consider only themselves to contain the fullness of the faith.

True.

1. Since 2) contains a contradicting assertion, they cannot both be true. One of the apostolic churches has drifted from the apostolic teaching.

What are the contradicting assertions that made them drifted from the apostolic teaching? Many of the so-called assertions are whereby one makes it into written dogmas while the other is silence on them. Other is the disagreement on the word used. They are not sufficient to make us really drifted from the apostolic teaching as you call it. On the major doctrines, which really count, there is nothing to really separate us. But probably this is for another topic. Again I am wondering the reason you pit us against them. What about your church? How similar you are to them though?

1. If it is possible for one apostolic church to drift, then it is possible for the other to drift as well.

Of course, anything is possible except that they don’t. Why talk about the hypothetical?

1. I conclude that both have in fact drifted in certain areas.

As I said, no, we do not in the sense that we have become a different Church away from the teaching of the apostles.

1. Enter Church of Christ
2. Here I am

Again, as for #6 and # 7, maybe you can furnish us your history. Let’s see it. I don’t think we mind to be educated by it.

 

[contritespirit]

Forget the music friend. Answer the argument. No one has responded to my claims as of yet. By claims I mean the last 7 points as well as the preceding argument, which has (in large part) nothing to do with music.

Blessings, Pat

Classic COC dodging. You come to board claiming to own the place but refuse to answer what others have written. You promised to answer the “excellent” post of one individual, and I never saw you go back to it. I also left you a response on page seven, which you have not addressed. The argument you may isn’t valid because one of the premises beg the question. You basically said both of the churches left the faith in a premise, we’ll, that is not how syllogisms work, and you never wen’t about to prove it. The best you could’ve said is, “one of the two is incorrect” and even then you wouldn’t have a solid case. The two are in more agreement than you probably would like. And no two brotherhood preachers or even congregations believe alike on all things, yet that does not stop you from being in fellowship with them and calling them the one true church. I’d recommend you read Todd Deaver’s book “Facing Our Failures.” In it he shows how inconsistently we disfellowship one group and fellowship another who believe the exact same things. Or how no two preachers could agree on the “essentials” of the Christian faith, very telling.

 

[contritespirit]

I’ll repost:

There are a number of reasons why I don’t feel it is the one true church.

1. The churches in the first century were not autonomous as we claim. Acts 15 records the first ecumenical council of the churches. The Jerusalem patriarchs and representatives of Antioch met as a collegiate and discussed Gentile membership and further regulations. The meeting concluded with consensus, “It seemed well to the Holy Spirit AND us…” Letter’s got penned up with litmus rules and they were sent to the newly formed Gentile churches. This was a decree, by two churches, given for the rest of the churches in the diaspora. A similar convention happened in Samaria, without delving too deeply, I believe the lapse in charisma (Baptism of the Spirit) was timed and planned. In order that the Samaritans wouldn’t segregate further and become “autonomous” with the Spirit and His gifts, Peter and John came down to confirm them and rope together a stronger thread—for the one they had was frizzy (Acts 8:14-19). Paul and Peter and other writers wrote from one church to another and expected them to obey the instructions.
2. Akin to reason number 1. Reason number two goes like this. The gospel preacher of the churches of Christ is the residue of the Catholic priests and bishop. In an attempt to dodge Catholic and protestant influence, we have created, no, concocted a makeshift position. A pastor-teacher-evangelist all wrapped under one head, minister. Now that the point is assumed it must now be proved (that is how our hermeneutic works). Churches of Christ then go and ransack scriptures for anything that looks like our modern evangelist (anachronism). Timothy and Titus fit the bill. Problem. Timothy was not a Gospel Preacher, he was an envoy representing Paul. The same goes for Titus. He didn’t preach twice on Sunday and then teach a class on Wednesday, he set thing in order “in Crete” (Titus 1:5-6) an entire city and he went town by town setting things straight—this is NOT autonomy, this is one man being set over a city under the hierarchy of another man, who is setting up a hierarchy in a city, episcopacy.

If churches of Christ didn’t claim to be Bible alone then this wouldn’t be a problem. It’s purely fanciful to change the name of the clergy and give him a neck tie instead of a collar and call it Biblical. Next, keeping with the sola scriptura motif, they add all sorts of rules that are not found in the Bible. Wednesday night bible class? Sunday Night? Gospel meetings? Sunday Collection? Church Buildings (don’t try the expedient argument its lame). None of these things are NT, yet they are taught as if they are part of the faith, NT churches met in homes and were more organic, Bible alone should lead you that direction, not halfway. If you are not sola scriptura this is not a problem for you.

1. Their hermeneutic is Lockian, so, late-staged. Command, example and necessary inference, is a start but not a complete thorough going aid for reading literature correctly. And no consensus exists on what is a matter of fellowship and what aint, or which examples are binding and which aint, even with the help of Thomas Warren and his PHD in Philosophy and preaching schools. Fatal to their reading is insisting on prescriptively reading every ledger with atomistic scrutiny, when it suits their purposes. So “sing and make melody in your hearts to the Lord” means sing, but only single acapella because instrumental music is not authorized by we Apostles and Jesus. To do so is “going beyond what is written” (out of context). Instead of a more natural, sing musically, or sing with joy in your hearts: Paul is simply describing what a Spirit-filled person does, not prescribing what a Spirit-filled person must do to the T as if being Spirit-filled is controlled like a science experience with its formulas. The Spirit blows where he will, when we blow it’s just hot air.
2. This is obviously a broad brush, but when you are refurbishing an old barn, you need the biggest brush you can. The fruit of the Spirit seems lacking, many vie for prestige in lectureships, lord it over the brethren, hurl flaming bolts from the celestial pulpit, and are down-right self-righteous. This self-righteousness is not an accident, because it flows naturally out of how we talk about ourselves as the “one true church,” the uniqueness draws in the unsuspecting, like a stranger offering candy to a child. JW’s do the same thing; paint everyone else as dishonest, or fools, or sincere but sincerely wrong, and you measure up as a pretty good group of folks, who got their eggs about them. It’s like being in an interrogation room, all you see is yourself and the people sitting around you, and when you look out, you see yourself staring back. While the people looking at the other side see it for what it is, people trapped in a very small room that can see nothing but themselves.
3. There are some good things going for it, don’t get me wrong. I don’t think holding up scripture is a bad idea. It’s not. Restoration as a theory is pleasant on paper but before you know it the Gestapo is rapping at your door like communism. It’s got the claim going for it. It has no history though. I used to use an illustration in my preaching, if during the days of Noah people started building Ark’s exactly as God described it to Noah, do you think they would float? The question is met with heads scanning from side to side, robotically as if they were surveillance camera, are they? Ol’Mrs. Dean may even sound the word no with her lips, and if the sermon is hitting, it’ll be audible. Ok, if that analogy is true, then why shouldn’t a restoration church be met with the same robotic surveillance swivel? After all, imitations may look exactly like the real thing but they never sell for nearly as much, and that may be why people aren’t buying it!

What Catholics and Orthodox claim, and I don’t know if it’s true, I have my own questions that have gone unanswered, is that they are historically linked to the first century. That a curtain did not drape down on the stage of history and neatly partition the first century church from the second. That there was no need for restoring, because floating their majestically through the sea of time, there she is in all her rich bulk, and golpher brown. And I may slightly believe her.

Now, you may raise an interesting question: whether or not the RCC or the OC have been faithful to the teachings, maybe, maybe not. What does that have to do with anything? The assumption is that a church must catalog every rule with encyclical attention in order to be the NT church, no scandal or deviation will do. But if we view the church as an ontological institution then the discussion has to be reframed. Why? Because Israel was God’s son even when she was in the grips of idolatry, (wasn’t Corinth?) The Israelites were to submit to their leaders, even if they were banging the door-keepers of the tabernacle and stealing portion of the meat offered.

They could not just move the tent pegs and restore the tabernacle or temple, or form a new Israel. No, only God could do that, they were to sit on their hands and “see the salvation of the Lord”—only he could remove bad leaders. So I don’t buy it, just like I don’t buy imitation leather. The church of Christ has no historical, ontological, linear story before the 1800’s. And if the church was never to be destroyed by human hands and was to grow from a small seed to a great tree; it should be great, it should be worldwide, it should be universal. The church of Christ is none of those things and that’s why I simply cannot believe it is what we claim it to be.

 

[kwortham]

Any post of the OP is flawed from the start. This is because it is made from the assumption that the Bible is the pillar and ground of truth. That is flat out wrong and heretical. The Bible is only a guide to the truth as long as it is interpreted by the real pillar and ground of the truth, the Church.

The OP says that instrumental music is not authorized because it is not found in the Bible. Wrong! Sola scriptura is not authorized because that teaching is not found in the Bible. The Bible contradicts the sola scriptura heresy. If sola scriptura were true, then it would by definition be found in the Bible.

Again, instrumental music is authorized because the pillar and ground of truth says it is.

 

[andrewstx]

The point that I’m trying to make is that the EOC and Church of Christ would side together against the RCC in terms of acapella music, baptism by immersion, and denial of papal infallibility. And yet whenever I cite quotes from the Fathers, you dismiss my contentions because you do not consider the Church of Christ to be apostolic. Well fine, deal with them from the perspective of the EOC. Tell me which of the apostolic churches who comes to contradicting conclusions about doctrine is the True Church.

He does have a good point here. Any takers?

Unfortunately his assertions are not exactly true about Orthodoxy are not factual. I have never set foot in a Gr Orthodox chrurch that did not use an organ to accompany the byzantine chant.

In Russia and other O churches in very cold places with unheated churches when a child needs baptism they heat a little water in a kettle and then baptise the baby by washing it and pouring. Washing is another meaning for baptism, subbmersion is only one.

It is not so cut and dry and legalistic as the OP would have one beileve. The East is not nearly so legalistic as the West, and surely not so legalistic as the “church of Christ”.

The cofc is based on the rigorous logic and philosophy as John Locke and Calvin, both of whom had infuence on the cofc, it is not based solely on the bible.

 

[sdegutis]

1. The RCC confers apostolic continuity on both themselves and on the Eastern Orthodox.
2. Both churches consider only themselves to contain the fullness of the faith.
3. Since 2) contains a contradicting assertion, they cannot both be true. One of the apostolic churches has drifted from the apostolic teaching.
4. If it is possible for one apostolic church to drift, then it is possible for the other to drift as well.
5. I conclude that both have in fact drifted in certain areas.
6. Enter Church of Christ
7. Here I am

1. They both have apostolic continuity in terms of doctrines that are objectively true and never change, such as the True Presence, the role and function of grace in the economy of salvation, the 7 Sacraments, etc. but this has naught to do with pastoral traditions, which are in themselves relative to the age by their very nature
2. I don’t think either of them have any doctrinal differences, just the EOC refuses to submit to the pastoral authority of the RCC, especially the Pope
3. Thus there is no contradiction
   4-7) Neither has drifted in terms of doctrine so there’s no reason to leave the RCC, and every reason to stay or join

 

[bwmnstar]

1. They both have apostolic continuity in terms of doctrines that are objectively true and never change, such as the True Presence, the role and function of grace in the economy of salvation, the 7 Sacraments, etc. but this has naught to do with pastoral traditions, which are in themselves relative to the age by their very nature
2. I don’t think either of them have any doctrinal differences, just the EOC refuses to submit to the pastoral authority of the RCC, especially the Pope
3. Thus there is no contradiction
   4-7) Neither has drifted in terms of doctrine so there’s no reason to leave the RCC, and every reason to stay or join

Response to 2. There are doctrinal differences between the two churches. The EOC’s denial of papal infallibility (which Catholic doctrine), as you referenced, is a case in point. A major case in point, I might add, because the authority of the Catholic Church centers on the pope’s infallibility.

1. Thus, there is a contradiction. Otherwise, the churches would not continue to be separated.

4-7) I don’t think that the Eastern Orthodox would agree with your claim. They believe that the Catholic Church has drifted in doctrine, and the Catholic Church believes the same about the EOC. Yes, for sure, there are similarities. But, as I said before, doctrinal differences, as well as variant traditions, are a crucial inhibitory factor preventing reunion. You must account for this.

 

[Nicea325]

QUOTE=bwmnstar;9390759]Forget the music friend. Answer the argument. No one has responded to my claims as of yet. By claims I mean the last 7 points as well as the preceding argument, which has (in large part) nothing to do with music. Blessings, Pat

:tsktsk::dts:

And my brother in Christ, And I have been waiting for you to present the historical evidence (primary sources) from ANY ECF clearly claiming he is not a follower of the CC or EO churches,but a member of the Churches of Christ? That is your ORIGINAL argument…where are the historical writings supporting it?
Why haven’t you done such a task?

 

[kwortham]

I would like for the OP to provide a single “congregation” from the first century, second century, third century, fourth century, fifth century, sixth century, seventh century, eighth century, nine century or even tenth century that was sola scriptura. Evidence should be provided. The OP will hit the power ball jackpot if he can provide writings from that congregation that condemn the Holy Catholic Church for not being sola scriptura.

If these entities ever existed, then why are they not in the historical record? Another thing that is not in the historical record until after Luther is a bible with only 66 books (i.e. Readers Digest Abridged Version ‘We rip out the parts that inconvenience us.’)

 

[sdegutis]

Response to 2. There are doctrinal differences between the two churches. The EOC’s denial of papal infallibility (which Catholic doctrine), as you referenced, is a case in point. A major case in point, I might add, because the authority of the Catholic Church centers on the pope’s infallibility.

1. Thus, there is a contradiction. Otherwise, the churches would not continue to be separated.

4-7) I don’t think that the Eastern Orthodox would agree with your claim. They believe that the Catholic Church has drifted in doctrine, and the Catholic Church believes the same about the EOC. Yes, for sure, there are similarities. But, as I said before, doctrinal differences, as well as variant traditions, are a crucial inhibitory factor preventing reunion. You must account for this.

Even if this is true and they have doctrinal differences, that doesn’t prove that neither are correct, because one can be correct while the other is incorrect thus explaining the contradiction. So it’s not sound to dismiss them both because they disagree with one another.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

The June newsletter of the Coming Home Network has an interesting article written by a Catholic, Randy Ory, who became a CofC member, and ten years later returned home to Rome. His insights are pertinent to this thread, with brwnstar claiming that the ECF’s support the CofC as the “true church.”

Quote - Around 1987, I began a rigorous investigation of the early Church Fathers. . .

My continued study of the fathers was rendering me completely troubled with my current state [as a CofC member, teacher, and preacher] and my confidence in the Church of Christ was gone by 1989. It was evident there was never time when the “New Testament Church based solely on the Bible” existed. It could not be found anywhere except in the imaginations of well-intentioned moderns . . . I realized the mystery of faith had been reduced to dry propositions. The simplistic view of the bible, the tortured re-write of history, and the sterile worship no longer nourished my soul . . . No longer could I embrace a biblical Fundamentalism, focused only on the Bible, which was separated from a 2000 year living, breathing tradition of faith. No longer could I maintain what I had embraced early on: that the true Church of Christ had only recently been restored after centuries of apostasy. The light of historical inquiry had revealed this as a distorted, fallacious view of history. --end quote.

The article continues. Mr. Ory was recently accepted into the Aspirancy Year for the Permanent Diaconate in the Archdiocese of Atlanta.

The full article can be read at chnetwork.org/converts/

It is presently the “featured conversion story.”

 

[pablope]

Since there are so many who responded, I can only focus on the latter portion of your question at the moment. But if you give me time, I will answer the first portion also.

You asked for a list of books.

Melito of Sardis:

It was Augustine who so heavily influenced the canonicity of the Apocryphal books. History, as I have shown, suggests differently.

Augustine did not have the authority to proclaim what should be in the Canon or not…that is why, in after the Council of Carthage…he submits the canon to Pope Boniface for confirmation to make it binding on the Church.

 

[bwmnstar]

Even if this is true and they have doctrinal differences, that doesn’t prove that neither are correct, because one can be correct while the other is incorrect thus explaining the contradiction. So it’s not sound to dismiss them both because they disagree with one another.

Granted. You are correct in your assessment (i.e. that one church can be wrong and the other right). But notice what you admit here, namely that a church which has claims to apostolicity can cease to be the true church.

Important: Two churches claiming apostolicity come to contradicting conclusions on doctrinal claims. This just goes to prove my point that possessing apostolic succession doesn’t mean that a church has remained faithful to apostolic teaching. And If (as you admitted) it is possible for an apostolic church to drift, why do the individuals on this forum continue to throw out apostolic claims as some kind of trump card–the ace of spades which shuts down Evangelical assertions? Why should I believe that the Catholics are the true church and not the Eastern Orthodox?

Also, throwing out data such as “your church began in the 19th century” doesn’t hold as much weight anymore. Hypothetically speaking, if the Roman Catholic Church is the one that has drifted from the apostolic teaching, then the Reformation was a necessity.

In my opinion, if I was to convert to anything, it would be to Eastern Orthodoxy. They are far closer to the fathers and Scripture than Catholics are. And thus in my assessment of church history, I am of the opinion that if only one of the apostolic churches has drifted, it is the Catholics who have gone astray.

 

[pablope]

Hello all,

Thanks for all of the posts and for challenging me to be a better thinker. Since there are many responses, as one member has noted, I will be concocting my rebuttals offline in a Word document and then posting them when time permits. This way, I won’t get so many responses before I adequately address certain individuals.

 

[sdegutis]

Granted. You are correct in your assessment (i.e. that one church can be wrong and the other right). But notice what you admit here, namely that a church which has claims to apostolicity can cease to be the true church.

Yes, just like the Church of Christ. Or the Docetists. Or the Montanists. Or the Gnostics. Or the Judaizers. Basically any “True Church” needs to claim that it has Apostolic roots in order to have any credibility, and only one of them actually does have completely intact Apostolic roots. The problem is figuring out which one this is.

Important: Two churches claiming apostolicity come to contradicting conclusions on doctrinal claims. This just goes to prove my point that possessing apostolic succession doesn’t mean that a church has remained faithful to apostolic teaching. And If (as you admitted) it is possible for an apostolic church to drift, why do the individuals on this forum continue to throw out apostolic claims as some kind of trump card–the ace of spades which shuts down Evangelical assertions? Why should I believe that the Catholics are the true church and not the Eastern Orthodox?

Because the evidence supports our claim. Read anything on this page and you will see how Catholic they always were in all of their doctrines, even to the first century: newadvent.org/fathers/

Also, throwing out data such as “your church began in the 19th century” doesn’t hold as much weight anymore. Hypothetically speaking, if the Roman Catholic Church is the one that has drifted from the apostolic teaching, then the Reformation was a necessity.

This is a fair point and it never sold me. Only the evidence of the Church Fathers did. I had to ask myself: what did Justin Martyr and Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus and Clement of Rome and Augustine and Ambrose et al. have to say on the matters of papal supremacy, on the priesthood, on the True Presence, on Baptism, on grace and faith and works in the economy of salvation. After reading what they had to say I was convinced that the Catholic Church’s doctrines, out of all the “denominations” I’d ever seen, fit the bill the best, by far. They had no notion of Faith Alone or Scripture Alone or any other invention of the reformation era.

In my opinion, if I was to convert to anything, it would be to Eastern Orthodoxy. They are far closer to the fathers and Scripture than Catholics are. And thus in my assessment of church history, I am of the opinion that if only one of the apostolic churches has drifted, it is the Catholics who have gone astray.

Please tell me one Catholic doctrine, aside from anything relating to the Pope, which is somehow incorrect in your opinion, and I’ll show you Scriptural support or at least support from the Church Fathers on it.