Is It Normal?

[AJB4]

I've been an inquirer for some time now, and I've learned loads. I've visited my parish twice now. I guess you've all heard about my background. I've been raised my whole life in the conservative Church of Christ (which thinks that all outside it are hell-bound). My entire family attend, and are, all but me, baptised members of it. Of course growing up I accepted it because it was all I knew, but I've come to question, to the point where I digress.

I began to question at first that there was a certain group of individuals that were the true church, and held to the 'branch theory'. Of course, my Dad (the Biblical scholar he is) quashed such things really quickly. Of course, that doesn't mean I stopped questioning it. Of course, now, reading about Orthodoxy, I've come to let go of the branch-theory thing.

The thing is, sometimes I'm on fire for conversion, and sometimes I'm scared stiff. No matter how much I read about Orthodoxy that seems true, it seems there are so many things that I just can't seem to unlearn and let go of about my past.

1) Now, I've read this (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/sola_scriptura_john_whiteford.htm), among many other things. I just CAN'T SEEM TO LET SOLA SCRIPTURA GO. I've also read this (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm), and after reading that, I'm almost convinced of Ignatius' letters.

However, in the Bible, it only ever speaks of a plurality of male elders/deacons in the local church, never a Bishop over an area. No matter how hard I try, I can't stop thinking APOSTACY! I know that it's probable that Ignatius was a direct descendent of the Apostles teaching, but I can't help it. That article said that there were interpolations. Maybe heretics at the time added the singular Bishop-text to confuse future people and justify their Apostate actions. Maybe it really is Apostacy.There's also a writing from about 96AD in which Clement (or something like that) spoke of bishop/elder interchangeably. I don't know when having a Bishop over an area was introduced, but I can't help it. It just screams APOSTACY! to me. I'm sorry. :help:

I'm also worried that on Judgement Day, God will say to me: "Why did you trust Ignatius' letters above my word, the Bible?" or something like that. The Bible is completely silent about area Bishops. There are also the irrational doubts like "Maybe they had enough Bible back in those days to hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura", and stuff like that. No matter how good an Orthodox argument seems, I just can't seem to take it on board. I at first thought that the position of singular area bishop was as old as 1 Timothy 3, since it talks of the Bishop in a singular manner, but now you guys have told me that elder/bishop are used interchangeably and that they mean the same thing.

Another reason I shouldn't doubt is because I think I've had direct help from God on this matter. I used to ask for dreams that had something to do with Eastern Orthodoxy, so I'd know the right way. He gave me dreams. Prior to my inquiry, I'd never had an EO dream, but afterwards, with a couple of exceptions, whenever I requested an EO dream during my prayer, I got one. I think that the purpose of these was to keep me investigating, because whenever I don't ask for them, I don't get them, and now, ever since I've come to greater knowledge of Orthodoxy, I've never had another one, even when I asked for one a couple of nights ago!

2) I've read this (http://www.bible.ca/cath-why-I-left.htm) (about a person who converted from a Catholic to the Church of Christ!), which freaks me out a little bit. Sometimes I feel like I'm going well, and then I read something like that and I feel like I have to run here to be rescued.:help:

Another thing that intimidates me is that all the men of the CoC are extremely knowledgeable of the scriptures. I wonder sometimes - how can they be wrong, when they know the Bible so well?! That's another thing that freaks me out.

It's stupid irrational fears for the most part, but I could still use some encouragement!:(

[Orthosdoxa]

It takes time, pal. To be blunt, those of us who've been indoctrinated w/ SS were brainwashed. The damage is not undone easily.

And don't read anything from bible.ca. Whoever runs that site has all the integrity of a skunk.

LK

[Jacob4707]

It was/is hard for me to let go. But at some point you will begin to experience a paradigm shift, and the "Sola Scriptura" (or probably better, "Solo Scriptura") concept will be seen for its flaws, even if you can't precisely explain why it is flawed. (I have a friend who came from a staunch Bible-believing background, and when he saw the flaws of "Sola Scriptura," the edifice crumbled, never to be rebuilt again. He is taking graduate studies in philosophy at a Catholic University and was recently chrismated into the Orthodox Church, and has begun to blog here: http://consumingfire.wordpress.com/ You may want to chat with him.)

I don't think I even want to argue with my Evangelical/Charismatic friends if the topic comes up. I know that might make me look like a coward or afraid of being bested in an argument, but I don't think I have the energy or even the words to explain why "Scripture alone" isn't enough and is, to me, a distortion of what the Faith is. After all, it's taken me the greater part of two years to let my belief in it lose its hold on me. Keith Mathison in his book THE SHAPE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA makes some good arguments for the Reformers' understanding of Sola Scriptura (as opposed to the term he coins - "Solo Scriptura" - to describe the way Evangelicals have misused and misunderstood what the Reformers meant), and he presents some arguments and quotes from the Church Fathers that seem to support his Reformation view of Scripture, as opposed to the Orthodox and Catholic views. However, his solutions, as I comprehended them, seemed just as confusing (if not more so) as what he says about the Orthodox and Catholics.

I still sometimes read the discussions on some of the former "Bible only" forums I used to frequent, and the same old stuff comes up over and over and over again. There is no "rule of faith" by which anyone is guided in terms of what to believe and why. Everyone has their own interpretation of Scripture, and it leads to everything from agreement to mild disagreement to "let's agree to disagree" and even at times to the equivalent of a verbal war. (That's not to say that the Orthodox don't likely have the same things and attitudes happen in their discussions, but that's probably another topic.) These people are trinitarian, but if you began discussing the doctrine of the Trinity, I think you'd have Arius and Nestorius and all the old heresies being batted back and forth all over again, and there would be no way for one person to say and prove that the Nicene and Chalcedonian faith is the correct interpretation, because there is no authority outside the individual believer and his or her interpretation of Scripture. As someone somewhere once said, his friend's definition of Protestantism was: "Well, I think it means...." :)

My faith is in Christ, but it's also in the Church and what she teaches, and not just in my understanding/decision about what a Christian is to believe and do, and why. What I have found in Orthodoxy is a fullness and depth unlike what I experienced in 30 years of Evangelical/Charismatic Protestantism. It is faith in God and Christ, but it also has the Saints and the Sacraments and the prayers and the riches of what Christians have been doing for nearly 2,000 years. I am not alone in my faith anymore. It is no longer "my" faith, but the faith of the Apostles and the martyrs and the Fathers and the millions of unknown saints and sinners who also sang "O Gladsome Light" every evening at vespers for the last nearly two millennia and with fear and trembling received the body and blood of Christ for the strengthening of their faith and for life everlasting. It is not just words of ink on paper that I hold to and look to in order to understand what I am to believe and what I am to do. I now have the Church, WHICH IS HIS BODY, to help me and guide me and to give my life to. Not just me alone with my Bible anymore, but me as a member of the throng of the faithful which stretches from His throne in heaven to the mean and base dwellings we inhabit on this earth as we daily try to live our lives together for Him.

[Mary of Bethany]

My faith is in Christ, but it's also in the Church and what she teaches, and not just in my understanding/decision about what a Christian is to believe and do, and why. What I have found in Orthodoxy is a fulness and depth unlike what I experienced in 30 years of Evangelical/Charismatic Protestantism. It is faith in God and Christ, but it also has the Saints and the Sacraments and the prayers and the riches of what Christians have been doing for nearly 2,000 years. I am not alone in my faith anymore. It is no longer "my" faith, but the faith of the Apostles and the martyrs and the Fathers and the millions of unknown saints and sinners who also sang "O Gladsome Light" every evening at vespers for the last nearly two millennia and with fear and trembling received the body and blood of Christ for the strengthening of their faith and for life everlasting. It is not just words of ink on paper that I hold to and look to in order to understand what I am to believe and what I am to do. I now have the Church, WHICH IS HIS BODY, to help me and guide me and to give my life to. Not just me alone with my Bible anymore, but me as a member of the throng of the faithful which stretches from His throne in heaven to the mean and base dwellings we inhabit on this earth as we daily try to live our lives together for Him.

Wow! Awesome, KATH!!!


Mary

[Protoevangel]

Sola Scriptura simply isn''t Scriptural; it is a man-made doctrine. Sola Scriptura is a logical absurdity, like God making a rock so large even He can't lift it. Scripture cannot be read and understood in a vacuum; everyone brings their own preconceptions to Scripture. Ergo: mega-thousands of demominations who all disagree, yet all think they have it "right". This in itself necessitates Holy Tradition. Tradition is the mindset of the Apostles handed down, as the framework within which one can finally understand Scripture correctly; in the context in which it was written and meant to be understood.

Please stay away from bible.ca and garbage like it, they are poison to your soul.

[kamikat]

While I never held to sola scriptura, I did hold on to the belief that the Pope was the head of the church on earth and anyone not Catholic wouldn't be saved. Leaving all that behind was very scary. At times, I would have nightmares, I would become depressed and very anxious over it. I finally came to understand that no man can convince you that he is right. You ask an Orthodox person, he will tell you he is right. You ask a non-Orthodox person, he will tell he is right. Only God can convince you of His truth. What worked for me is to put whatever topic I was worried about away for a while and read something completely different. For example, for me, history of the schism was a big deal. I would put it aside and read stories of the saints or a book on icons or something that had nothing to do with the history. Then, I could come back a couple weeks later, and my head would be a little clearer and I would be able to think about the issue in a different frame of mind,

[Knowledge3]

AJB4, I'm 24 and I had to study for 4-6 years to root out all the falsehoods and discern the truth(s) about Christian Orthodoxy.

I poked a bunch of holes in Protestantism and found Sola Scriptura to be neither scriptural or biblical.

My 0.02 :priest:

[jckstraw72]

taht site is a bunch of phooey, the Catholic Church does not say the NT isnt inspired ... thats just absurd. i didnt even look at the rest.

[Akathist]

When my inquirery became very serious, I started meeting twice a month with my Priest and I would take all kinds of questions to him.

I told him about TAW and he thought coming here was fine but he did not want me reading other things on the internet for a while as there is so much out there that is just plain lies and falsehoods.

I think TAW is safe, so is Orthodox Circle, Orthopraxis, and monochos... all are good sources of information that is put forward in a fair manner. But check with your Priest first of course.

Spend time just looking at the EO church and not trying to compare it to something else by also studying other things. Sure, read your bible, that is a very EO thing to do, but just for a bit, stop reading a protestant study bible.

One thing I learned while converting was that things I thought I knew about the bible were actually the interpretations taught to me about what the bible said. The more I realized this the more I came to see that Sola Scriptura was not being followed anywhere else. Protestant chruches that I attended had their own interpretations of scripture and that was what they taught. If you disagreed with that interpetation some would say you were "following doctrines of man"... how ironic that the next church would have yet another interpretation that was the "Truth"!

When I looked at the history of the EO church and saw just how long the doctrines and beliefs of our church has lasted and really thought about it. Given human nature, it is a miracle to have beliefs that have remained unchanged for this long! Surely that is the proof of the work of the Holy Spirit!

By getting my head out of my former protestant books it was easier to grasp EO theology as the way EO's see the world and how things are described is culturally different. It is literally an acculturation process to convert, imo. Diving into the new culture made all the difference to me.

I also found that staying away from polemics and debates with protestants was very important to me. I needed to first really learn what the EO church had to teach before I could say if it was what I wanted or not and I couldn't do that in the midst of a battle field.

One last thing: be kind to yourself... this is not an easy process at all. Be sure to keep up your prayer routines and once in a while try reading a fiction book for fun just to relax your brain a bit.

[AJB4]

Thanks everyone.

[Philothei]

I cannot talk out of experience as I am a craddle orthodox but since I have sponsored a couple of Godchildren into the faith with their families I can testify to this: Although people walk from a kind of faiths into Orthodoxy they all share the same zeal that is looking for a Christian faith that holds true since 33 AD. And those who want to know historically the Church, Orthodoxy is their home.


Take care and also take your time. You are still young and you have time to think and pray that God would direct you to your spiritual journey. Our Church will be always a home for you.

God bless,
Philothei

[buzuxi02]

Dear AJ,

I commend you for searching on your own, reading, finding out both sides of the story, and running around to various churches.

I'll just give you a few verses from the bible which dispels the myth of sola scripture.

Matt 2.23- '....That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene"

This above verse cannot be found anywhere in the OT. Scholars believe it may refer to Judge 13.5, but it simply is not recorded in the bible.

2 Tim 3.8- "Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the Truth..."

One following sola scripture has no clue as to whom Jannes and Jambres is. But we who have tradition know that Jannes and Jambres are the magicians who opposed Moses in exodus 7.11.

Jude 8- "Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he rebuked about the body of Moses dared not bring accusation against him but said, The Lord rebuke you."

The above incident is recorded no where in the bible. The author himself did not find it neccesary to be limited to the OT. Jude uses a story found only in jewish tradition based upon a popular belief that Moses was assumed into Heaven. This story can be found in the pseudo-apocrypha of the Assumption of Moses.


Jude 14-15 " Now Enoch the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also saying,'Behold the Lord comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgement on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him."

This prophecy of Enoch is a quote not recorded anywhere in the bible. But once again Jude gives us jewish tradition. This jewish tradition is confirmed in the book of Revelations, where it speaks of two prophets who will preach and prophecy in the end times. (see Rev 11.3) Tradition reveals to us that the other prophet will be Elijah.

John 21.24- " This is the disciple who testifies of these things and wrote these things and we know that his testimony is true"

Sola scripture believers are baffled as to why there was more than one author of this gospel. But as Orthodox christians we know that John did not speak greek and was unlearned,and had scribes commit his teachings into writings with a slant towards his greek audience, hence greek philosophical thought is found in John's gospel. In Orthodoxy the icon of St John the Evangelist shows the apostle dictating the gospel to his disciple Prochorus who writes it down.

Elder is still used as a way to address a bishop. I remember when the past archbishop of the GOAA in greek would be called Geronta Iakovos.

[Monica, child of God]

The thing that dispelled my belief the most in SS was the fact that Scripture itself does not support it, as someone already mentioned. Christ did not say, "I will leave you with a book." He did say, "I will build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."

The Church is the "pillar and ground of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15) from which the Bible came. Think about it: for decades and centuries the Church existed, even thrived in the face of intense persecution without the canon of Scripture as we know it today. What they did have was "the apostles' teaching and...the fellowship...the breaking of bread and... the prayers." (Acts 2:42)

Of course this is not to say that Scripture is not important. As a Protestant one of the things that surprised me most was the way the Orthodox Church devoted itself to the use of Scripture. Right now we are reading 3 books of the OT during Lent. The Psalter is read and, more importantly, prayed once a week. Monastics are praying the Psalter twice a week during Lent. The DL uses tons of Scripture. It seems to me that the Orthodox Church knows full well that Scripture is "useful for teaching rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness…" (2 Timothy 3:16)

M.

[AJB4]

Here are a few more random thoughts and what-ifs that I've been having:

1) What if the early church fathers were wrong to be Bishops over areas (after all, they're not mentioned in the Bible)? What if the true Christian faith went underground and was unheard of, while the early church fathers were part of a larger, Apostate group.

2) What if they really did have the Bible canon back then, and to say that they didn't was a Catholic lie to try and justify their traditions?

I know most of this is irrational psycho-babble, but still...

[Breaking Babylon]

I don't think that 'what ifs' should overpower the beauty of what is the Church, especially knowing that those thoughts are pretty far-fetched.

And I say that with all fairness and gentleness.

[choirfiend]

Because historical fact proves those ideas wrong.

What do you mean by a "bishop over an area?" Each bishop was over their city's community of Christians. James was over Jersusalem's Christians. As time went on, and there were more Christians in more communities in more places, a bishop might be over 2 towns' communities, or three, or four. Each bishop today is over a specific area. There are ROLES of administration that are assigned to bishops, but they are only the direct spiritual leader of their own area. Let me give an example: THe Orthodox Church in America's Administrative head bishop is Metropolitan Herman. Met. Herman's spiritual community is the District of Columbia and New York. His authority does not extend to where I live, in PA. I have a different bishop. Each bishop is only over their own flock--we have no "Pope" who is spiritually superior to other bishops. All bishops are equal, but some may be chosen to help run the administration on a larger scale--but as the Spiritual leaders, the Shepherds of Christ's Flock, they are all equal.

The idea of a "catacomb church" isnt new.
The Church fathers, by and large, died for the faith. You can read their writings. There are no hidden secrets here, and what they teach is not apostate.


The Bible Canon was formalized at an Ecumenical Council. You can read the declarations from this Council. You can research what scholars (of all kinds of personal religious beliefs, btw) have reported as historical fact in the development of the Biblical Canon.

Finally, the Catholic Church is not evil. It also did not exist until the Great Schism in 1054 when it left the rest of the Church (which is called the Orthodox Church today), so it could not have been lying to support its traditions. As well, the NT books, even on their own, without the others and without being complete in a single book, did not exist for DECADES after the Resurrection of Christ. John did not write Revelations until 90ad. How could htere have been a "bible" when the books included in the Bible itself did not all exist for almost 60 years after Christ's Resurrection.

Do some delving into history and FACT from reputable sources, not just random personal websites you find online. Contrary to popular practice, the Internet is usually NOT a good place to do research, unless you;re finding online versions of books, or articles and research from scholarly sources.

[Philothei]

Here are a few more random thoughts and what-ifs that I've been having:

1) What if the early church fathers were wrong to be Bishops over areas (after all, they're not mentioned in the Bible)? What if the true Christian faith went underground and was unheard of, while the early church fathers were part of a larger, Apostate group.

2) What if they really did have the Bible canon back then, and to say that they didn't was a Catholic lie to try and justify their traditions?

I know most of this is irrational psycho-babble, but still...


I "smell" Da Vinci code ... or is it my idea??? :doh: Conspiracy theory? Gnosticism? ABJ4 like choirfiend said look for historical sources that "speak" not some superficial proterstant sites that the only thing they do is "anti-catholic/orthodox" polemics.
Here also another article that deals with the Bible in the Orthodox perspective.

http://www.protomartyr.org/first.html

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO WHOM?
Next, I was surprised to discover that many "gospels" besides those of the New Testament canon were circulating in the first and second centuries. These included the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Gospel according to the Egyptians, and the Gospel according to Peter, to name just a few. The New Testament itself speaks of the existence of such accounts. Saint Luke's Gospel begins by saying, "Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us . . . it seemed good to me also . . . to write to you an orderly account" (Luke 1:1, 3). At the time Luke wrote, Matthew and Mark were the only two canonical Gospels that had been written. In time, all but four Gospels were excluded from the New Testament canon. Yet in the early years of Christianity there was even a controversy over which of these four Gospels to use. Most of the Christians of Asia Minor used the Gospel of John rather than the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Based upon the Passion account contained in John, most Christians in Asia Minor celebrated Easter on a different day from those in Rome. Roman Christians resisted the Gospel of John and instead used the other Gospels. The Western Church for a time hesitated to use the Gospel of John because the Gnostic heretics made use of it along with their own "secret gospels." Another debate arose over the issue of whether there should be separate gospels or one single composite gospel account. In the second century, Tatian, who was Justin Martyr's student, published a single composite "harmonized" gospel called the [I]Diatessaron. The Syrian Church used this composite gospel in the second, third, and fourth centuries; they did not accept all four Gospels until the fifth century. They also ignored for a time the Epistles of John, 2 Peter, and the Book of Revelation. To further complicate matters, the Church of Egypt, as reflected in the second-century New Testament canon of Clement of Alexandria, included the "gospels" of the Hebrews, the Egyptians, and Mattathias. In addition they held to be of apostolic origin the First Epistle of Clement (Bishop of Rome), the Epistle of Barnabas, the Preaching of Peter, the Revelation of Peter, the Didache, the Protevangelium of James, the Acts of John, the Acts of Paul, and The Shepherd of Hermas (which they held to be especially inspired). Irenaeus (second century), martyred Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, included the Revelation of Peter in his canon

Please also read this whole article I know it is long but very analytical and historical...



God bless, Hope that also helps you.
Philothei:crosseo:

[hungrytiger]

nevermind

[buzuxi02]

If the christians went underground and what today exists as christianity is actually a heretical sect then theres no reason to be christian. The gates of hades shall not prevail against her, as the scripture reads. If the christians went underground in less than a century after Pentecost and then died out, as Gamaliel said: If its of men, it wil come to nothing but if its of God ,you cannot overthrow it. (acts 6.37-39)

[Protoevangel]

AJB4,

You are coming from COC, these doubts are inevitable. When I became Christian, I came from an Agnostic/Pantheistic background. I had similar thoughts too. I think you know in your heart the truth, and that these doubts are coming from another source. Pray hard, my young friend. Pray hard and avoid anything that is not edifying, anything that feeds these (self-admittedly "irrational" ) doubts.

Stay on the narrow path, and know we are praying for you.

[kamikat]

AJB4, it is normal to be assulted by doubts during this time of year. Great Lent is when Satan sees that Christians are really working hard. I've been reading TAW for 3 Great Lents so far. Normally, what happens is there are a number of inquirers during the time after Chrismas that are serious and interested in Orthodoxy. Then, in the week leading up the Great Lent, they start dropping like flies, because of doubt, because they think the way is too hard, whatever. Once Great Lent starts, the battle with Satan becomes very difficult. Know where these doubts are coming from. When they creep up on you, say the Jesus prayer, then read your bible. But this subject away for another day. God doesn't cause confusion and doubt.

[Jacob4707]

Here are a few more random thoughts and what-ifs that I've been having:

1) What if the early church fathers were wrong to be Bishops over areas (after all, they're not mentioned in the Bible)? What if the true Christian faith went underground and was unheard of, while the early church fathers were part of a larger, Apostate group.

2) What if they really did have the Bible canon back then, and to say that they didn't was a Catholic lie to try and justify their traditions?

I know most of this is irrational psycho-babble, but still...

THE PILGRIM CHURCH by Edmund Hamer Broadbent (1865-1945) puts forth this idea. Mr. Broadbent supposedly traveled throughout Europe (in the late 19th/early 20th century?) and discovered the writings of all these out-of-the-mainstream Christian groups that proclaimed and maintained a Sola Scriptura, non-Catholic Christianity.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/thailand/PC-B-000.HTM

I had read this book years before, but had given away my copy. When I began exploring Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I ordered a copy to see if its arguments could persuade me to ignore the Early Church Fathers and remain non-denominational Protestant. He does raise some issues, but he treats them so briefly and so superficially (I'm not saying that he treats them incorrectly, but I don't think one can, e.g., summarize Cyprian in a paragraph or two) that even if I were to accept his arguments, I'd still have to do an immense amount of reading on my own to come to my own conclusions about how the Church grew and evolved. His obscure and hidden European sources and church groups are largely if not completely unavailable, too, so I'd have to make the same journeys to Europe that he did to verify if he is being accurate. And ... his solution would result in the same thing we currently have in Bible-only Protestantism, IMO.

Maybe I'm dismissing Mr. Broadbent too easily, but I chose to believe that the development of the Church in its first few centuries was okay, and that the Ante-Nicene writings were not Catholic inventions and interpolations to cover up a several-centuries-long Bible-only Protestantism. Others of course may disagree and find in THE PILGRIM CHURCH a valid argument against Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

[Theophorus]

Here are a few more random thoughts and what-ifs that I've been having:

1) What if the early church fathers were wrong to be Bishops over areas (after all, they're not mentioned in the Bible)? What if the true Christian faith went underground and was unheard of, while the early church fathers were part of a larger, Apostate group.

2) What if they really did have the Bible canon back then, and to say that they didn't was a Catholic lie to try and justify their traditions?

I know most of this is irrational psycho-babble, but still...

Hello AJB4,

why did Timothy not fit the qualifications of elder? Let me ask you a question. Show me one place in the "pattern" where a congregation appointed their own elder, just one. Did Timothy fit the qualifications of elder?

Concerning the cannon. What if Wescott and Hort are wrong and the masorites corrupted the OT text?...It does not matter. The scriptures themselves attest to the nature of the Church, and Christ's promises concerning His body. The Church consists of saints, people. According to the "pattern" is it likely that the Church of Christ would disappear until the anabaptist appeared on the scene during the reformation? Where is the Church in the 1st 14 centuries?

What you are being asked to accept goes against scripture.

Vincent,

A former CoC member

[AJB4]

Hello AJB4,

why did Timothy not fit the qualifications of elder? Let me ask you a question. Show me one place in the "pattern" where a congregation appointed their own elder, just one. Did Timothy fit the qualifications of elder?

Concerning the cannon. What if Wescott and Hort are wrong and the masorites corrupted the OT text?...It does not matter. The scriptures themselves attest to the nature of the Church, and Christ's promises concerning His body. The Church consists of saints, people. According to the "pattern" is it likely that the Church of Christ would disappear until the anabaptist appeared on the scene during the reformation? Where is the Church in the 1st 14 centuries?

What you are being asked to accept goes against scripture.

Vincent,

A former CoC member
Interestingly enough, and I'm sure you've heard this - The Church of Christ claims that there's no need to trace a lineage back through the centuries to find a church called the 'Church of Christ', because there have been all kinds of movements prior to the Restoration Movement to back to 'non-denominational Christianity', and 'back to the truth'. They think that easily, there would have been people throughout history prior to the Restoration Movement to represent 'true Christians' on earth, because movements to go back to 'non-denomination, no creed but Christ, sola scriptura' throughout history have not ceased. But I'm sure that's not news to you.

However, once we establish the early church was not sola scriptura (which has been done), that argument becomes void.

Unfortunately though, it's the best argument the CoC can come up with, since they so obviously cannot trace their origins any further back than the Restoration Movement of the late 1700s and early 1800s (oh, and Romans 16:16 of course ;) )

[AJB4]

THE PILGRIM CHURCH by Edmund Hamer Broadbent (1865-1945) puts forth this idea. Mr. Broadbent supposedly traveled throughout Europe (in the late 19th/early 20th century?) and discovered the writings of all these out-of-the-mainstream Christian groups that proclaimed and maintained a Sola Scriptura, non-Catholic Christianity.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/thailand/PC-B-000.HTM

I had read this book years before, but had given away my copy. When I began exploring Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I ordered a copy to see if its arguments could persuade me to ignore the Early Church Fathers and remain non-denominational Protestant. He does raise some issues, but he treats them so briefly and so superficially (I'm not saying that he treats them incorrectly, but I don't think one can, e.g., summarize Cyprian in a paragraph or two) that even if I were to accept his arguments, I'd still have to do an immense amount of reading on my own to come to my own conclusions about how the Church grew and evolved. His obscure and hidden European sources and church groups are largely if not completely unavailable, too, so I'd have to make the same journeys to Europe that he did to verify if he is being accurate. And ... his solution would result in the same thing we currently have in Bible-only Protestantism, IMO.

Maybe I'm dismissing Mr. Broadbent too easily, but I chose to believe that the development of the Church in its first few centuries was okay, and that the Ante-Nicene writings were not Catholic inventions and interpolations to cover up a several-centuries-long Bible-only Protestantism. Others of course may disagree and find in THE PILGRIM CHURCH a valid argument against Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
Of course there would have been those who ignored tradition and the like, but then you, I suppose must ask the question:

Was it wrong to ignore tradition?

Of course there would have been minor sola scriptura groups that were prior to the reformation. But then you also must wonder, were they right in their 'ways'.

There were also many other 'Catholic' things that were supposed
to have happened during the very midst of New Testament times anyway (for example, Ignatius' consecration to Bishop of Antioch in 69AD, if Esubius is accurate).

KATHXOYMENOC, obviously you weren't sure without a shadow of a doubt that sola scriptura was actually the right way after reading that book. This may sound like I'm accusing, and I'm not, but:

Do you think you may have dismissed it too easily? After all, it's something that salvation could have been riding on.

OH GODS! This was obviously what J.C. Choate was on about in the 'Voice of Truth' magazine, when he spoke of

"only a few people have continued the Lord's church to this day. The larger group became the 'catholic church' (obviously a reference to Ignatius' letter), later split and became the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches."

[Theophorus]

Interestingly enough, and I'm sure you've heard this - The Church of Christ claims that there's no need to trace a lineage back through the centuries to find a church called the 'Church of Christ', because there have been all kinds of movements prior to the Restoration Movement to back to 'non-denominational Christianity', and 'back to the truth'. They think that easily, there would have been people throughout history prior to the Restoration Movement to represent 'true Christians' on earth, because movements to go back to 'non-denomination, no creed but Christ, sola scriptura' throughout history have not ceased. But I'm sure that's not news to you.

However, once we establish the early church was not sola scriptura (which has been done), that argument becomes void.

Unfortunately though, it's the best argument the CoC can come up with, since they so obviously cannot trace their origins any further back than the Restoration Movement of the late 1700s and early 1800s (oh, and Romans 16:16 of course ;) )

The problem is, where was the baptized church. Since only a man, baptized as an adult, may baptize another....

...and that's a big problem.

[choirfiend]

Of course there would have been minor sola scriptura groups that were prior to the reformation. But then you also must wonder, were they right in their 'ways'.

AJAB

There weren't! You're assuming something that is untrue. If it were true, it should be easy enough to find "Sola Scriptura" people or groups or ideas from the 100s on, especially tracing it through ALL of the centuries (for nothing will or can prevail against Christ, or His Body, the Church) in history books. You are making this assumption as though it were fact without actually researching it. You need to recognize these assumptions and biases and deal with them honestly when you're viewing sources. They can cloud your judgment and smear your reading--but if they are false assumptions in the first place, you should disregard them and try to learn and see through cleaner glasses.

[buzuxi02]

Sola scripture groups before there was a new testament?

And what for? The overwhelming majority of people not only were illiterate, those that were did not agree on what was authentic and what was not.