/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>829422

>yet the result of that acceptance is not visible in their churches?

Such as?

I'm putting in a caution flag for concern troll

>>829422

I'm not a prot but I'm hesitant about believing distant history in the first place. The more years that have passed, the more time there has been to rewrite history. For example, people now believe no limbo is the traditional doctrine and babies going to limbo is modernist but the opposite is actually true and everyone knew that until a few years ago. I suspect the jews pulled a similar slow consensus change over time to pass themselves off as Israelites and it's easy to believe it because everyone else does, until you read the Bible and see King David is described as ruddy, not tawny and jew-like. Another example of this is the redefinition of free will. Many modernists believe free will breaks determinism when that theory actually originated from new age bs and Aquinas' definition of free will which you can still read is that free will is the ability to choose between listening to reason or emotion, not deviating from God's planned path for you. So I would be careful about believing so called "history" if it's only backed by majority authority. The majority of humans are corrupt (the majority voted for Hillary) and letting your mind be ruled by them is a mistake. So don't trust anything passed off as a "truth" just because most other people repeat it. There are better ways to debate protestants than what op is pulling.

>>829422

This is a great question OP, I’d like to better understand this myself.

However I think only Lutherans and Anglicans accept all 7. All of the Calvinist denoms reject Nincea II (Holy images and statues), and most Prots reject Ephesus (mother of God).

Baptists reject all of them yet keep all of the teachings on the trinity claiming they were all in the Bible

>>829429

>Baptists reject all of them

Wrong

Second Epistle of Peter says the following:

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

So then the reason why no prophect of scripture is subject to private interpretation is because it came not by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke in that moment when they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. God's word is not like man's, it is only of one true interpretation, being originated from God himself. Therefore, it is the only article of faith that can be interpreted singularly. I praise God regularly for keeping his word for us today for this very reason.

The first Epistle of Peter says this moreover:

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

>>829427

all the works of the early church fathers (and the new testament, obviously) that prove catholic doctrines are still there

and we still have the exact same old testament (septuagint) of the apostles that demonstrates that joseph is the heir of Abraham and Israel, and not Judah

I am confused that I am being considered to be a concern troll or looking for ways to debate protestants. I am a member of a protestant church and am honesty searching and asking the question - not trolling or debating other protestants so I am asking this question myself and seeking answers.

As for answering the question about the acceptance not being visible, I will list the council, the canon, and what is not visibly accepted. Anglicans and Lutherans will likely be the exception in plenty of cases but they are not representative of the majority of protestants, but a special and interesting case.

First Ecumenical Council, Canon III

Speaks of bishop, presbyter, and deacons explicitly, the majority of protestant churches have done away with bishops and now have pastors which is similar but quite different.

First Ecumenical Council, Canon IV

Speaks of the process of a appointing a bishop, pastors in protestant churches are elected with a variety of methods but few are appointed by their pastor peers. More often than not it would be a board of the church which is comprised of lay people.

First Ecumenical Council, Canon XIII

Few seem to do Viaticum for the dying.

First Ecumenical Council, Canon XIV

A sort of training or punishment I do not see used.

First Ecumenical Council, Canon XIX

How can this canon be followed by those in schism from the universal church?

First Ecumenical Council, Canon XX

Prayer is not done standing as a deliberate decision to be uniform, there is a lot of kneeling and sitting with your head bowed instead.

Second Ecumenical Council, Canon II

A bishop is to administer ones own jurisdiction according to the canons, if this is the case why have I not heard of the canons sooner? I simply do not believe them to be regarded any longer within mainline protestantism.

Second Ecumenical Council, Canon VII

The Didache teaches that you are to baptise with three immersions in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Within this canon it outlines a problem with one immersion ["who are baptized with only one immersion"]. Few baptize with immersion, let alone three in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Third Ecumenical Council, Canon I

Contains mention of Church structure which Protestants do not have (provinces, orthodox metropolitans, etc).

Fourth Ecumenical Council, Canon I

Shows a continuance of the prior canons made in every synod up until that point to remain in effect. This means the councils continue in effect until today just like they did in that day.

–

These are just some exampes, there are more and I passed over plenty I could mention at least one point on.

Fourth Ecumenical Council, Canon III

- Mentions monks, however mainline Protestants no longer have a concept of monks and Monasticism any longer.

- No longer have "bishop of the city".

- Mega church pastors seem to violate this more often than not.

Fourth Ecumenical Council, Canon IV

Mentions monks, monastic life, and rules pertaining to establishing monasteries , however mainline Protestants no longer have a concept of monks and Monasticism any longer.

Fourth Ecumenical Council, Canon VI

Mentions ecclesiastical orders, another aspect of the church that mainline Protestants no longer have a concept of any longer.

Fourth Ecumenical Council, Canon VIII

- "according to the tradition of the holy Fathers" currently little regard, or is completely unknown to mainline protestantism.

- excommunication seems to be a lost concept.

Fourth Ecumenical Council, Canon IX

Makes mention of church structure which is not present in many mainline protestant churches.

Fourth Ecumenical Council, Canon XV

Forbids deaconesses under the age of 40, no doubt that this is violated regularly.

Fourth Ecumenical Council, Canon XIX

Speaks of two assemblies per year of a large scale, does not occur. "the bishops of every province shall twice in the year assemble together where the bishop of the Metropolis shall approve, and shall then settle whatever matters may have arisen"

Note: Decreased to one per year by The Seventh Ecumenical Council, Canon VI

Fourth Ecumenical Council, Canon XXVIII

This statement does not seem to reflect within modern Protestantism: "Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers"

Seventh Ecumenical Council, Canon I

Not occuring: "That the sacred Canons are in all things to be observed."

Seventh Ecumenical Council, Canon II

Not occurring: "That he who is to be ordained a Bishop must be steadfastly resolved to observe the canons, otherwise he shall not be ordained."

nor "Therefore we decree, that every one who is raised to the rank of the episcopate shall know the psalter by heart"

Seventh Ecumenical Council, Canon VII

When is the last time, if ever, a mainline protestant church was established which was consecrated with holy relics?

Seventh Ecumenical Council, Canon XV

"From henceforth no clergyman shall be appointed over two churches"

>>829441

>>829472

They come up with creative interpretations of all these things and other things. For example you might say that something isn't X, but they say it is. Their "authority" overrides yours, and it would be generous of them to even answer such a question, and it would be incumbent upon you to immediately accept, affirm and acknowledge their answers for the sake of preserving unity. If they choose not to answer at all, this follows double. So you better forsake that concept of truth. At least, according to that line of thinking. It doesn't matter what they say, if they are the authority, they make themselves similar to God. The whole idea of inquiring into matters comes from Biblical concepts such as priesthood of the believer, that are not present in functioning state churches.

So for instance, the one about knowing the psalter by heart. According to the view of the kinds of people who thought that, what this is really saying is that the layperson must treat every person raised to that rank as knowing it by heart. There is no concept of checking to make sure or relying upon it being true. For the sake of unity, they all assume it's true, and do everything in their power to cover up the fact that it might not be. Thus these councils may impose all kinds of things without truly ever being implemented or carried out. Moreover, the real meaning of the words is subject to interpretation. You can see how these aspects might be important in a time where loyalty outweighs accurate assessments. The question is, by what mechanism do we know they aren't being servants to deceitful, immoral wickedness that way? They say, by superstition. But I say, by the word of God. As Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians, there are false apostles. John told us in his first epistle general that, the person that is not of God does not hear the word of God. The Lord Jesus Christ said the same thing in John's Gospel.