>>675607
>Drop everything and become Catholic.
Thank you but no thanks. Off the top of my head, my problems include
>Aquinas using Greek Philosophy to explain the faith
>"Doctrinal Development"
>Difference on original sin between Augustine (adopted by Catholicism) and the Fathers
>Purgatory
>Mary, Queen of the Universe
>Papal infallibility
>oops, let's add the filioque
>Novus Ordo breaks most continuity with the liturgy of the Early Church
>Jesuits are gay
>Charismatics and pro-sodomites are tolerated
>Praying to literal statues
>Ecumenicism
>>675609
>You'll have to forgive my ignorance but doesn't the Reformed Faith rely on Sola Scriptura for authority?
Yes, but it's not solo Scriptura. Scripture is our final authority, but tradition is not altogether tossed out, otherwise each person would have a different interpretation of Scripture. My pastor always said "One interpretation, many applications" regarding hermeneutics, and looking at church history helps us with that.
>https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/role-tradition/
>I know Calvin sometimes backed his arguments up from Patristics but I am also aware he was wary of some of their writings, particularly those attributed to Ignatius. Some of the Apostolic Fathers are even at odds with one another. I remember being surprised to read in some of them such as Clement 1 pronouncements that sounded very much like Sola Fide, something Catholics and Orthodox are very much against.
Pic related regarding Clement. Yes, Calvin was understandably critical of the ECF, and they are certainly not infallible nor inspired. I'm not taking the ECF as Gospel truth, only I'm seeking some sort of hermeneutical ancestors for my own beliefs. For example, I don't honestly see the solas in the Fathers; nearly unilaterally, salvation and the faith seemed to be more complex than being reduced down to a few quick statements.
What's going through my mind is "how much influence did Aquinas, who adopted secular and foreign ways of categorizing theology, and Augustine, who developed his theology in relative isolation from the the rest of the church, have on what I currently believe, and how much of it is the true Apostolic faith, entrusted to the Apostles."
>On the other hand from what you have said about your professors basically telling you to shut up or be thrown out on your ear I find that intolerable.
I understand; I think what's been concerning to them is that I've been raising questions in every class, from Greek I where I was asking about the providential preservation of Scripture (something the Reformers believed but we don't seem to today), to the Filioque, baptism in the Early Church, Communion, etc. I think that since they didn't really see me before I started learning about this, they think I've just come to seminary to debate.
Also, the scholarship that I'm on is essentially for young men wanting to be Reformed pastors. They understandibly don't want me to use that money, then graduate and become a Lutheran or Anglican when it could've gone to a future PCA or ARBCA pastor.
>>675605
>Sounds like you should look into Eastern Orthodoxy. We too deny the Papacy and the crazy doctrines it produced like the ones you mentioned. The difference being we follow the early Church Fathers and do not say they lost the original Faith.
Honestly, I just don't see Theosis in the early Father's, not toll houses. Also, the lack of evangelism I see in Orthodoxy has turned me off to it. Granted, Franky Schaeffer has been my main exposure to it, as his parents and my grandparents were friends, and so we followed his progressive lying and apostasy.