/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Eastern Rite Catholics are "Orthodox". Up until the great Apostasy of the Vatican where the Vatican rejected the Council of Trent, and many other councils, there there less division between schismatic Orthodox and Catholics than there was between Catholics and Protestants.

you're not gonna find the answer on an interweb forum, through lurking and so forth. You likely won't find the answer even if you were deep into church history and well-read on theology.

Believe me, I'm been a fair while into this topic and with no resolution in sight.

I'm actually beginning to consider just biting the blackpill, becoming protestant, ecclesiologically agnostic and subscribing to the "mere Christianity" ethos. Our faith and love for Jesus is perhaps supposed to be simple.

>>853503

The Lord did not establish one church so you could ignore it, but the devil did make protestants so you could shop for the religion that best fits your proclivities like a church was a shoe store.

>>853510

Heard it all before. The real question is did Christ establish a church of principles united metaphysically through one faith (catholic lower case) or a church of offices and authority + said principles (Catholic Ortho)? Catholic apologetics whilst at the least entertaining doubt to the former, clutch at straws when attempting to formally establish the latter.

Honestly, it could go either way from what we're given in scripture. What I'll say is; Papal Infallibility is a hell of a lot of faith to put into a man-run institution. I'm just not quite there yet. I have this lingering feeling that Rome will

(if not already) succumb to the modernists that seek her destruction. If the Church were anything like she was depicted in say, I read this book, Lord of the World, a steadfast bulwark against ultra-modernity in the end-times, viewed by the heathen apostate world as a backwards cult, then what would there be to fear in joining? It's clearly the Ark, the refuge for believers. But something has clearly gone wrong in this day and age.

No monolith sect of Christendom I've seen looks particularly adept at countering the poisons of modernism. That's my ultimate reason for considering mere Christianity. You, the Bible, your local Church.

>>853469

>E-Christisn here,

e-christians go to e-heaven and can watch it on their computers

>>853523

>Heard it all before

Good.

>bad logical argument

Most people decide what they want and then rationalize it. There are big things in the Bible they leave out; one of the biggest in this bad argument is that the Lord God acted in vain to create a church.

> I read this book,

Then you read the part where it says you won't understand the book without the help of an apostle. Ergo, you need the help of the Apostolic Church.

Look at all the 2000 different protestant religious out there, each has a argument for their religion that is a neglectful induction fallacy - they ignore some other parts of the Bible and take the parts of the Bible they like out of context. Each one felt what they want (usually sin, like Luther wanted a nun, wanted multiple wives, wanted to spite the Church because it had sinners, felt he could convert the Jews when Christ Our Lord could not, etc. Or King Henry, who wanted to divorce his wives so he didn't have to make up lies about them and chop their heads off)

>>853539

It's as if you read the heading of each sentence, assumed the rest of what I was going to say, and replied based upon those assumptions.

>Most people decide what they want and then rationalize it.

You're not getting me. IF it is indisputably the truth, I will, on account of my soul, follow it. There is however, this lingering cloud of doubt over me regarding it that I just can't seem to shake no matter how much I read/pray/listen/learn. I can't stay like this for much longer. It's maddening.

>I read this book,

>>Then you read the part where it says you won't understand the book without the help of an apostle.

You literally didn't read the rest of the sentence. I was making the point of hopes/expectations regarding the RCC not meeting reality.

>Look at all the 2000 different protestant religious out there…take the parts of the Bible they like out of context.

the whole 'so and so wanted such and such so they created a sect to suit themselves' rhetoric has always struck me as a cheap apologetic trick (with the exception of Henry VIII and the CoE, since that's basically what happened).

The precepts of the reformation stand on their own, otherwise those of us not simply seeking a prot sect to suit our wants would have crossed the tiber already.

The 5 Solas, covenant theology, dispensationalism, these parts of protestantism all provide compelling and not easily negatable systems of theology that key off particular presuppositions, not simply the desires of selfish men. Sola Gratia/Fide presumes original sin completely defines us and and points to that as to why we're hopeless without God's saving grace, 5 Point Calvanism results from being uncompromising in belief in God's omnipotence, dispensationalism is a system for interpreting everything in the Bible through a literalist lens. Nothing about these says they were created for selfish purposes. They're honest attempts at understanding the mysteries of faith -yes, with the Bible alone and seperate from a governing authority.

>>853552

Okay, so this is the opposite end of the spectrum, the belief that the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth (John 16:13) in the literal sense, yes?

How can one be sure theirs is a true faith and thus the true interpretation of sacred scriptures against others whose interpretations may challenge/contradict?

>>853539

">E-Christisn here,

e-christians go to e-heaven and can watch it on their computers"

Lul