How can evangelical Christians believe in the same Trinity as the CC?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MH84
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So is blindly following others and having them do all the thinking for you.
I am not guilty of that. I do defer to those with more training in a field, but i make my own decisions
We must study to show ourselves approved.The deity of Christ and the triune nature of God were historic issues that all Christendom needed to confront.
True, but what was all Christendom at that time, say from 33 AD to 600 AD?
OK! I accept it on the same *objective *basis on which it was first accepted - Divine revelation, it’s Biblical.
Never said it wasn’t. The framework is 100%, some of the elaboration (such as the name) came with time.
Where did this come from?
Sometimes, I read more into the posts than I should. I was not directing this at you or at Bengal. I feel that the OP was directing it at the more anti-Catholic posters, those who say nothing good can come from the Church. I’ve never seen you make such an assertion
 
IMO, either the evangelicals need to acknowledge they are following a Catholic doctrine, or that they have really have a limited basis (from Scripture alone, which is not explicit about the doctrine) for believing in the Triune God.
It is true. They do have to agree that they at least believe in some Tradition.
 
I am not guilty of that. I do defer to those with more training in a field, but i make my own decisions
Likewise. Glad to hear that.
True, but what was all Christendom at that time, say from 33 AD to 600 AD?
This is best answered with a negative. It wasn’t “Roman” Catholic. East and West were identified as the “catholic” (universal) church. Roman Catholicism now identifies itself as THE “Catholic” church, claiming for itself catholicity after the split. The East claimed orthodoxy and therefore calls itself the “Orthodox” church. These are just names like “Baptist” or “Methodist.” The true, “catholic,” universal church which Christ is building has existed since Pentecost and transcends names. The Lord knows those who are His (2 Tim. 2:19).
Never said it wasn’t. The framework is 100%, some of the elaboration (such as the name) came with time.
Yes. That’s called “doctrine” and “theology.”
Sometimes, I read more into the posts than I should. I was not directing this at you or at Bengal. I feel that the OP was directing it at the more anti-Catholic posters, those who say nothing good can come from the Church. I’ve never seen you make such an assertion
Like, “can any good come out of Nazareth?🙂 There are true believers in the “Catholic” church, as there are in the “Orthodox,” Baptist, Methodist, etc., etc. God sees the heart, the seat of faith, not the labels. He saves people through faith in Christ, not religious organizations. Those originate with men and are of the world. And they, like this world system (cosmos), will one day no longer exist. But the church belongs to Christ who purchased it with His own blood. And she will be revealed with Him in glory (Col. 3:1-4).
 
This is best answered with a negative. It wasn’t “Roman” Catholic. East and West were identified as the “catholic” (universal) church. Roman Catholicism now identifies itself as THE “Catholic” church, claiming for itself catholicity after the split. The East claimed orthodoxy and therefore calls itself the “Orthodox” church. These are just names like “Baptist” or “Methodist.” The true, “catholic,” universal church which Christ is building has existed since Pentecost and transcends names. The Lord knows those who are His (2 Tim. 2:19).
But they were all under the Popes until the Great Schism werent they. This means the “catholic” Church was the “Catholic Church”.
 
But they were all under the Popes until the Great Schism werent they. This means the “catholic” Church was the “Catholic Church”.
In the beginning there was no such thing as “institutionalized unity.” There were many churches being planted (beginning in the region of Judea), especially by Paul and his companions on their missionary journeys. Elders and deacons were appointed in each of the churches to govern them:Acts 14:23 “When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.”

Titus 1:5 "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you,"Scripture identifies the universal “church” as the spiritual “body of Christ,” made up entirely of individual believers whom Christ Himself purchased by His blood (the redeemed). And these individuals gathered together, locally, as “churches”:Acts 15:41 “And he was traveling through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.”

Acts 16:5 “So the churches were being strengthened in the faith, and were increasing in number daily.”

Rom. 16:4 “…who for my life risked their own necks, to whom not only do I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles;”

Rom. 16:16 "All the churches of Christ greet you.

1 Cor. 16:1 "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also.

Gal. 1:22 "I was {still} unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ;"Christ Himself directly addressed seven churches in the region of Asia Minor in the Book of Revelation.

The idea of one visible, institutionalized church was the product of evolution. By the fourth century, after the union of church and state, the churches with their metropolitan Bishops had come to be largely dominated by five great centers: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria, and their “Bishops” came to be known as “Patriarchs” (a totally non-Biblical form of church government), each having equal authority and full control of his own province. After the division of the empire in A.D. 395 into east and west, the Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria (eastern) gradually acknowledged the leadership of the Patriarch of Constantinople. The churches in the west, of course, looked to the Patriarch of Rome (called “Pope,” however, all the Patriarchs at one time were called “popes”). This eventually grew into the struggle for the Leadership of all “Christendom” between the Patriarch (Pope) of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople. It wasn’t until the ecclesiastical split between the east and west over the “filioque” that the western “church” adopted the name “Catholic,” claiming catholicity, and the eastern “church” took on the name “Orthodox,” claiming doctrinal purity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top