How would a protestant cope with being in a first century church?

[jphilapy]

That dratted inconvenient second part–motion to table! However, it’s precisely what renders the first part not as trenchant as you seem to think.

Well that second part is a matter of opinion. It seemed to me that in the first part you were going to point to an antenna but I guess what you really intended to do was play the ‘pot shouldn’t be calling the kettle black’ card.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

It isn’t relevant to the OP wheather the jews are trying to convert gentiles or not, wheather the OT says to convert gentiles or not. What is relevant is you are practicing sola scriptura in the first century, and you want to know how to obey God. So you think you have to live in israel to get circumcised? Then do it. Isn’t that the neccesary conclusion you would come to if you are practicing sola scriptura as a gentile in galatia in the first century?

There’s nothing in the OT that says foreigners have to move to Israel or be circumcised to please God. So, no, it’s not a necessary or even logical conclusion. (Otherwise we’d probably all be doing it.) You’re arguing from things that are not in the text.

What matters is if a gentile wants to serve God. Does the OT speak to that with instructions on how he can?

Not really—that’s where the NT comes in. There’s plenty in the OT about what the Israelites are supposed to do under the covenant. There’s not a whole lot in the OT dealing with how Gentiles can/should please God.

Here’s how I think sola scriptura would have worked in this extremely hypothetical world. If I were a pagan gentile in the ancient world and had somehow read the OT, I would have concluded that God had a special covenant with the Israelites. Even if I found it interesting or even somehow compelling, I would never have presumed that the Sinai covenant or other Torah laws would have applied to me as a non-Israelite—that’s simply not what the text says and also not how religion worked in the ancient world. In fact, I might have even concluded that circumcision as an Israelite custom was not that all essential because it seems to function more as an outward sign of an interior disposition—a quality that seems to be far more important to God than outward observances (e.g. Jer. 4:4, Hosea 6:6). I simply don’t see any way that I would have concluded that Israelite law of any kind would have applied to me as a non-Israelite.

Then Paul would have preached Christ to me—and him crucified (1 Cor 2:2)—no Gospels yet. (Note that most scholars think that Paul founded the church in Galatia.) Subsequently having become a Christian, I don’t know why I would WANT to be circumcised(!) and Paul certainly wouldn’t have encouraged me to do so—just the opposite since he would have argued that this is NOT the way to please God (Gal 2:16, Rom 3:20).

Now, in Paul’s absence, along come “those from James” who claim that I need to be circumcised—a “different Gospel” (Gal 1:6). Peter now “compels me to live as a Jew” (Gal 2:14). Now the situation is very confused because Peter and the James delegation no doubt carry a great deal of apostolic authority (Gal 1:18-19; 2:9), but on the other hand, this is not in agreement with what I’ve been hearing from Paul all along. As this hypothetical first century sola scriptura Christian, I would have naturally challenged Peter and the James people to show me from Scripture where gentiles need to be circumcised, or how this is even consistent with Scripture, or any clue at all from scripture that the Israelite law covenant was intended to apply to non-Israelites. They simply wouldn’t be able to do it and I would conclude that their manmade requirement of circumcision for Gentiles is inconsistent with the reasoned sense of scripture. Having no doubt already been taught well by Paul (Rm 2:27-29) I would have in fact challenged THEM using Dt 10:16 and Dt. 30:6—that the Torah itself implies that spiritual disposition is far more important to God than any outward observance of circumcision.

As this hypothetical first-century sola scriptura Christian I would then require (of course to be fair) that Paul provide his own scriptural argument, which would no doubt be Galatians 3. As this hypothetical sola scriptura first-century gentile Christian, I would conclude that Paul’s case is stronger because he uses scripture rather than primary appeals to personal authority to make his case. In the practice of sola scriptura, reasoned arguments from Scripture in the end trump everything else—above all, appeals from personal authority that are contrary to scripture. I think it’s irrefutable that Paul’s scripturally based argument eventually carried the day in the early church.

Your question about whether Jews in the church in Galatia (if there were any at all) would have continued practicing circumcision is hotly debated by scholars. In this hypothetical world I think Paul would have perhaps (maaaybe) permitted it, but would have tried to talk them out of it—arguing from the Deuteronomy passages that since circumcision is nothing (Gal 5:6), by doing so you take on the killing (2 Cor 3:6) burden of the law (Gal 5:1). I think he would be mystified as to why any Jewish Christian would want to do such a thing, since it essentially nullifies the work of Christ (Gal 2:21).

 

[jmcrae]

Well, the full context isn’t really computing here. The NT is either unwritten or in the process of being written, so someone who lived/died by Sola Scriptura (NOT the sole defining criterion of a Protestant, by the way) would have to find some other antennae to guide him.

Right - which means that Protestantism would have been physically impossible for the first four centuries of the Church, until Pope Innocent I gave us the Bible by means of his infallible declaration - which then means that whatever church Christ founded, it could not have been a Protestant church.

 

[JonNC]

Right - which means that Protestantism would have been physically impossible for the first four centuries of the Church, until Pope Innocent I gave us the Bible by means of his infallible declaration - which then means that whatever church Christ founded, it could not have been a Protestant church.

The notion that “the Church Christ founded” could have been a Protestant Church is a strawman. No Protestant - well, maybe some - would argue the point. It is more obvious that there was no need in the first century for a “Protestant Church”, as there was just one Church.
But beyond that, how at least Lutherans define the Church - the congregation of believers where the word is preached and the sacraments administered - leaves us no need to claim “our Church was the one founded at Pentecost”. We certainly view ourselves as part of that Church, and we see that you are, too. Further, we see the great role the Bishop of Rome, the Catholic Church has played in the history of our faith.

Finally, the problem with the hypothetical question is that SS has never been claimed to be a practice necessary during the apostolic age. With the apostles there, there wold be no need of it.

Jon

 

[jmcrae]

Finally, the problem with the hypothetical question is that SS has never been claimed to be a practice necessary during the apostolic age. With the apostles there, there wold be no need of it.

Jon

The conundrum with that idea is that, by the time the Apostles and their hearers were dead, there would have been no one left alive with the authority to decree that from henceforth, you shall put the Scriptures ahead of the Bishops.

Another problem is that the canon of the New Testament wasn’t finalized until nearly 300 years after the death of the last Apostle, making Sola Scriptura impossible, during that period of time.

Not to mention the problem that the first person to think of Sola Scriptura lived in the 900s AD, and wasn’t taken seriously by anyone until nearly 500 years after his death, when Martin Luther resurrected his idea (though not his wild theological speculations).

 

[JonNC]

=jmcrae;7256756]The conundrum with that idea is that, by the time the Apostles and their hearers were dead, there would have been no one left alive with the authority to decree that from henceforth, you shall put the Scriptures ahead of the Bishops.

Another problem is that the canon of the New Testament wasn’t finalized until nearly 300 years after the death of the last Apostle, making Sola Scriptura impossible, during that period of time.

In both cases, unnecessary, as the bishops met together in council, a practiced ended with the schism. So, which bishops do we believe, now that they do not agree? Where do we turn? What source do we have, directly from the apostles?

And certainly, the writings of the apostles did exist before Pope Innocent I.

Jon

 

[jmcrae]

In both cases, unnecessary, as the bishops met together in council, a practiced ended with the schism. So, which bishops do we believe, now that they do not agree? Where do we turn? What source do we have, directly from the apostles?

And certainly, the writings of the apostles did exist before Pope Innocent I.

Jon

Yes, they did, but there was no “Scriptura” to which one could look, “sola.” The writings that we know and love today as “Scripture” were simply books among many books - It took more than 80 years to discern which among them were “God-breathed,” and which ones were interesting, but not suitable to be read out at Mass.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, they did, but there was no “Scriptura” to which one could look, “sola.” The writings that we know and love today as “Scripture” were simply books among many books - It took more than 80 years to discern which among them were “God-breathed,” and which ones were interesting, but not suitable to be read out at Mass.

Of course they were looked at, and again to the point, those that followed knew the apostles and later their disciples looked to them. Bishops later met in councils. They don’t now because, even though they agree on Sacred Tradition, they don’t agree.
SS wasn’t necessary because the Church was united.
So, again, which bishops do we believe, now that they do not agree? Where do we turn? What source do we have, directly from the apostles?

Jon

 

[jmcrae]

Of course they were looked at, and again to the point, those that followed knew the apostles and later their disciples looked to them. Bishops later met in councils. They don’t now because, even though they agree on Sacred Tradition, they don’t agree.

They met in Councils about once every 200 years; I think they have actually met more often since Trent than in the times of the Early Church.

SS wasn’t necessary because the Church was united.

So. by what authority, and when, was it deemed necessary? How was the mantle of authority passed from Peter’s Successor to the Bible? Was there some kind of special ceremony, or did a miracle take place, or how did it happen?

So, again, which bishops do we believe, now that they do not agree?

Peter’s Successor, and all who are in full communion with him, since he was the Chief Apostle.

 

[JonNC]

=jmcrae;7256924]They met in Councils about once every 200 years; I think they have actually met more often since Trent than in the times of the Early Church.

Not all of them. Not after the Great Schism.

So. by what authority, and when, was it deemed necessary? How was the mantle of authority passed from Peter’s Successor to the Bible? Was there some kind of special ceremony, or did a miracle take place, or how did it happen?

The bishops are no longer in unity? How do we know which to believe. What source to we have from the apostles.

Peter’s Successor, and all who are in full communion with him, since he was the Chief Apostle.

How do I know he is the one to follow, since he stands in schism with all the other patriarchs united? How do I know that your interpretation of Peter’s role, as important as it is, becomes the expanded role now claimed by his successors?

Jon

 

[jmcrae]

Not all of them. Not after the Great Schism.

Well none of the Bishops who were out of communion with Peter were ever invited to any Council - not even in the eras of Nestorius. Pelagius, and Arius.

The bishops are no longer in unity? How do we know which to believe. What source to we have from the apostles.

We have the Tradition combined with the Gospels, which unite to show us that we need to be in communion with the See of Peter.

 

[Roy5]

jmcrae

 Don't have time to read everything and response. But you suggest that Christians needs to follow the law? What law are you talking about? Re-read Ex. 21. Lev. 20, and Deut. 22-23. They make the Shariah law of the Muslims appear mild in comparison!

jphilopy
Could it be that Jesus isn't that concerned about uniform theology? That is my impression. We live in such a mammoth, magnificent, mysterious and miraculous world that is it any wonder that brilliant minds don't disagree on various matters of doctrine? Let's face it, the Bible often isn't all that clear, either. "Even the devil can quote scripture." My own view, for what it's worth, is that Jesus wants us to love God and one another, and everything else is secondary. "And now abideth faith, hope and love, and the greatest of these is love." My own observation is that some of the most orthodox believers in the creeds and doctrines of the church are badly infected by bitterness toward Protestants and others outside the church. To me that is a major sin.

 

[jmcrae]

jmcrae

 Don't have time to read everything and response. But you suggest that Christians needs to follow the law? What law are you talking about? Re-read Ex. 21. Lev. 20, and Deut. 22-23. They make the Shariah law of the Muslims appear mild in comparison!

Christ’s law, I mean - which is Church law, and pretty mild compared to most things, including traffic regulations and the tax code, which most people manage to live by, day to day.

 

[Radical]

1 Kings 12:28-32 (NIV)

28 After seeking advice, the king made two golden calves. He said to the people, “It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem. Here are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.” 29 One he set up in Bethel, and the other in Dan. 30 And this thing became a sin; the people came to worship the one at Bethel and went as far as Dan to worship the other.
31 Jeroboam built shrines on high places and appointed priests from all sorts of people, even though they were not Levites. 32 He instituted a festival on the fifteenth day of the eighth month, like the festival held in Judah, and offered sacrifices on the altar. This he did in Bethel, sacrificing to the calves he had made. And at Bethel he also installed priests at the high places he had made.

Obviously he divided the church – anyone who worshipped at Bethel or Dan no longer worshipped at Jerusalem – and appointed illegitimate priests.

First you want to apply a NT term “church” to an OT nation and it isn’t dividing a church when you change the god(s) that you worship…would be better called starting a new religion around a different deity. You are trying too hard to force this passage to serve your purpose…

Saints Timothy and Titus were appointed to their positions of authority by succession:

“authority of succession” …still looking for that phrase used in connection with either Tim or Titus

1 Timothy 4:14 – Do not be careless about the gifts with which you are endowed, which were conferred on you through a divine revelation when the hands of the elders were placed upon you.

gifts of the Spirit are special abilities and not positions/offices.

Titus 1:5 –
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee.

yes, Titus was directed to appoint elders in the churches b/c Paul left that undone. Paul was appointed to one task and Titus was appointed to another task and the elders were appointed to yet another task…that isn’t a chain of succession the way you want to portray it.

Haydock Commentary on Titus 1:5 –

Ver. 5. That thou shouldst,[4] &c. The sense cannot be, that he was to change any thing S. Paul had ordered, but to settle things which S. Paul had not time to do; for example, to establish priests[5] in the cities, that is to say, bishops, as the same are called bishops v. 7; and, as S. Chrys. and others observe, it is evident from this very place, that the word presbyter was then used to signify either priests or bishops.

Haydock is a little dated and is inclined to project the contemporary hierarchy back onto the ancients. As P F Bradshaw noted, "Prior to the beginning of the third century, no Christian text uses the title “priest” directly to designate a particular individual or group of ministers within the Church. (Search for the Origins of Christian Worship p 201) Christ was the high-priest and the people were all priests.

That the ordaining of priests belongs only to bishops, is evident from the Acts and from S. Paul’s epistles to Timothy and Titus.

First, there wasn’t a priestly office in the 1st century church, second Titus and Tim weren’t bishops (in the modern sense). May I suggest that you get out of the 19th century and have a look at some more modern Catholic scholars such as Fr Sullivan.
Here is what McBrien (another catholic scholar) has stated at this site:

• Jesuit Fr. Francis Sullivan, my former professor of ecclesiology at the Pontifical Gregorian University and currently professor at Boston College, offers two reasons for opposing such a view.

First, the apostles were not bishops in the present-day meaning of the word. They were missionaries and founders of local churches. There is no evidence, nor is there likely ever to be any evidence, that any of the apostles took up permanent residence in a particular church, or diocese, as its bishop.

Second, although some local churches had pastoral leaders who were called bishops (see the Acts of the Apostles 20:17-35, especially verse 28), it remains unclear whether these “bishops” were actually appointed or ordained by the apostle Paul or by any other apostle.

“The New Testament,” Fr. Sullivan writes, “offers no support for a theory of apostolic succession that supposes the apostles appointed or ordained a bishop for each of the churches they founded.”

Nor does the Didache (“The Teaching”), an ancient book of basic instructions for Christians, contain any “suggestion that such pastoral officers would derive their authority in any way from a founding apostle.”

Pope St. Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, known as 1 Clement, written 30 years after St. Paul’s death, indicates that the church in Corinth was being led by a group of presbyters (priests), with no indication of a bishop.

Not even St. Ignatius of Antioch, who is a major source for our knowledge of the organization of the early church, suggests that “he saw his episcopal authority as derived from the mandate Christ gave to the apostles. … He never invoked the principle of apostolic succession to explain or justify the role and authority of bishops.”

“One conclusion seems obvious,” Fr. Sullivan writes. “Neither the New Testament nor early Christian history offers support for a notion of apostolic succession as ‘an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today.’ ”*

…and that from Catholic scholars who wouldn’t mind finding support for modern Catholic claims. The situation only gets worse (for you) when the opinions of other scholars (less committed to Catholicism) are considered

 

[Radical]

Erich:

And you probably don’t have photos or other mementos (aka “statues”) of family members anywhere in your home or office either, right?

pictures yes, statues no and nothing that any one could call a shrine w/o abusing the meaning of the word…one doesn’t need a degree to differentiate between a shrine and a photo album, I wish you the best of luck in mastering the ability.

By what authority do sheep appoint their own shepherds?

“Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.” (Acts 20:28) – the “overseers” (or elders - in the Greek, episkopoi, or bishops) of the church have guardianship over “the flock” of God’s people.

Oh, so now they are shepherds?..a little while ago they were servants (when that title suited you). Masters do order servants about, but trying to determine how things worked by reference to one figurative title to the exclusion of other such titles seems a little silly. Spiritually, they were all brothers. Christ makes it pretty clear as to how it was to be:

*"But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. (Matt 23 NIV) *

The flock, is the body of Christ and each is to play a role within that body. No one, not even an elder, was beyond accusation and discipline. (1 Tim 5: 17-20)

Further, to be a “pastor” (shepherd, overseer, elder) is also to be an “ambassador” (“authorized messenger or representative”) for Christ (2 Cor. 5:18-20) – thus, an ambassador must be sent.

well if every Christian is Christ’s ambassador, then I guess every Christian would be sent by Christ. This sounds very “protestant” to me.

And we’re back to what does “to be sent” mean, except that someone in authority over you has conferred the privilege and authority upon you?

and so your point is that Christ has sent Christians into the world to bring sinners the message of reconciliation? Again very “protestant” and not a hint of anything to do with succession. Now, returning to your strange focus on the meaning of “sent”, if being sent always means “that someone in authority over you has conferred the privilege and authority upon you” then I guess there is no way around the fact that the other apostles had authority over Peter and John. I thought you Catholics believed otherwise…good to see you are making some progress toward a better understanding.

 

[freerf]

You think making spelling mistakes is a sign of being MORALLY a fallible authority? Ridiculous.

The first insult. Just thought i’d point that out. Let’s be gentlemen and gentleladies, eh?

 

[Irish_Polock]

 Don't have time to read everything and response. But you suggest that Christians needs to follow the law? What law are you talking about? Re-read Ex. 21. Lev. 20, and Deut. 22-23. They make the Shariah law of the Muslims appear mild in comparison!

I would have to guess…if I may, that the few laws that are binding to Christians from th OT are those of the Abrahamic Covenant which is now the New Covenant in Christ. Of course, the Mosaic Covenant, as a legal entity has been abrogated, and is no longer binding to anyone.

 

[jphilapy]

Part 1

There’s nothing in the OT that says foreigners have to move to Israel or be circumcised to please God. So, no, it’s not a necessary or even logical conclusion. (Otherwise we’d probably all be doing it.) You’re arguing from things that are not in the text.

If you were living in pre nt times then you wouldn’t have any way of knowing about God except through Judaism. And you could not worship God except through Judaism. So is it illogical to think that a gentile must convert to judaism in order to serve God? On what basis is that illogical?

Not really—that’s where the NT comes in. There’s plenty in the OT about what the Israelites are supposed to do under the covenant. There’s not a whole lot in the OT dealing with how Gentiles can/should please God.

As I demonstrated before, God made a way for gentiles to convert to Judaism. Once they are converted, what happens? vs 44 says they can eat of the passover, vs 48 he shall be as one that is born in the land, vs 49 ONE LAW for both homeborn and stranger. This is not just talking about passover legislation:

Exo 12:43 And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof:
Exo 12:44 But every man’s servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.
Exo 12:45 A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof.
Exo 12:46 In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof.
Exo 12:47 All the congregation of Israel shall keep it.
Exo 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
Exo 12:49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

And what does Paul tell the gentiles: Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

So Paul understood the same as Exodus that if they are circumcised then they are in debt to keep the whole law. The same thing that Ex 12:43-49 says.
Paul didn’t tell the gentiles that they had to goto israel to be circumcsised for this to be true did he? Of course not. And of course Paul’s point would be consistent with the dispersion of the Jews. Since they are keeping God’s law outside of Israel, it would follow that Gentile converts would follow suite in that they also can convert, be circumcised, partake of the passover outside of Israel. Pauls is clear on that point.

So that means if you were a first century gentile that never heard the gospel preached, and you were seeking to know God, then you would have to attend synagogue. (Where else are you going to learn about God at?) The jews would have taught the gentiles how to seek God the same as the scripture says. And in order for you to partake of God’s covenant, you would need to be circumcised.

 

[jphilapy]

Part 2

Scripture is clear that there were many gentiles seeking conversion:

Act 13:16 Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, give audience.

Act 14:1 And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed.

Act 17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Act 17:12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

Act 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

It logically follows that if Gentiles are in the synagogue then they are there seeking to convert. If they are seeking to convert then they are going to be told how to, according to the law of moses:

I think my above arguments demonstrate that you would need to convert to Judaism and that it would be the logical thing to do if you sought to serve God not knowing of the gospel yet.

Even if I found it interesting or even somehow compelling, I would never have presumed that the Sinai covenant or other Torah laws would have applied to me as a non-Israelite—that’s simply not what the text says and also not how religion worked in the ancient world.

Well you weren’t there in the ancient world, so you have to draw your conclusion from the evidence we have which is: Gentiles did seek conversion, God did provide a way for them to convert. So with that compelling evidence, why wouldnt you seek conversion? Why would you choose to interpret scripture differently than the jewish authority or differently than Paul (by saying that the gentiles would need to goto israel to convert)?

I might have even concluded that circumcision as an Israelite custom was not that all essential because it seems to function more as an outward sign of an interior disposition—a quality that seems to be far more important to God than outward observances (e.g. Jer. 4:4, Hosea 6:6).

Knowing what is far more important would not give you the right to over throw God’s established order such as ignoring his law/circumcision etc. None of that could be changed till God’s chosen time. So as long as you are not under grace you were to be under law.

Your question about whether Jews in the church in Galatia (if there were any at all) would have continued practicing circumcision is hotly debated by scholars. In this hypothetical world I think Paul would have perhaps (maaaybe) permitted it, but would have tried to talk them out of it—arguing from the Deuteronomy passages that since circumcision is nothing (Gal 5:6), by doing so you take on the killing (2 Cor 3:6) burden of the law (Gal 5:1). I think he would be mystified as to why any Jewish Christian would want to do such a thing, since it essentially nullifies the work of Christ (Gal 2:21).

Well it doesn’t matter if they are in galatia because Paul’s point applies to them wether they are there or not. If they are holding to scripture alone, then they would insist on practicing what the scripures say, and would consider Paul a false teacher for teaching that circumcision is not necessary for future jews when the scripture clearly says circumsion is necessary.

So what OT scripture proves that circumcision was no longer required of Jews or gentile converts? (Or if you still want to argue that gentiles did not need to convert to judaism to serve God before the Gospel came, then just ignore gentiles in the above question because it still applies for Jews.)

 

[jphilapy]

jphilopy

 Could it be that Jesus isn't that concerned about uniform theology? That is my impression. We live in such a mammoth, magnificent, mysterious and miraculous world  that is it any wonder that brilliant minds don't disagree on various matters of doctrine? Let's face it, the Bible often isn't all that clear, either. "Even the devil can quote scripture."  My own view, for what it's worth, is that Jesus wants us to love God and one another, and everything else is secondary. "And now abideth faith, hope and love, and the greatest of these is love." My own observation is that some of the most orthodox believers in the creeds and doctrines of the church are badly infected by bitterness toward Protestants and others outside the church. To me that is a major sin.

I would agree that we are not all going to agree or always agree. that is just a fact of life. But we still need a uniform body of doctrine that all are required to believe. The apostles had a uniform body of doctrine. God’s revelation does not contradict itself. So our understanding of God should not be contradictory. Either one of us understands correctly or neither. But both cannot if they contradict. Is there anything that you believe all christians MUST believe?