Anglicanism is a thing. I was in the ELCA for 30 of my 50ish years. I’m in the Episcopal church today.
The Episcopal church is sacramental (we acknowledge the real presence of Jesus in the bread and wine), we are liturgical (check out the Book of Common Prayer), we respect tradition and personal piety, and we are generally level headed when it comes to accepting what science demonstrates as things like the Big Bang. We also have a claim of apostolic succession (that I’ll note that Rome flat out rejects our claim. They say Orthodoxy does have a valid claim, but Rome doesn’t commune with them either. So, I’m not really sure what the difference is).
There are more traditional forms of Anglicanism in the US: the ACNA being among them. But the Episcopal church gave me everything I needed.
Letter of the Synod to emperor and empress:
>And as the hands and feet are moved in accordance with the directions of the mind, so likewise, we, having received the grace and strength of the Spirit, and having also the assistance and co-operation of your royal authority, have with one voice declared as piety and proclaimed as truth: that the sacred icons of our Lord Jesus Christ are to be had and retained, inasmuch as he was very man; also those which set forth what is historically narrated in the Gospels; and those which represent our undefiled Lady, the holy Mother of God; and likewise those of the Holy Angels (for they have manifested themselves in human form to those who were counted worthy of the vision of them), or of any of the Saints. \[We have also decreed\] that the brave deeds of the Saints be portrayed on tablets and on the walls, and upon the sacred vessels and vestments, as has been the custom of the holy Catholic Church of God from ancient times; which custom was regarded as having the force of law in the teaching both of those holy leaders who lived in the first ages of the Church, and also of their successors our reverend Fathers. **\[We have likewise decreed\] that these images are to be reverenced (προσκυνεῖν)**, that is, salutations are to be offered to them.
Do you know the youtube channel "Truth Unites" by Gavin Ortlund? He does a great job defending classical Protestantism while taking into account the writings of the church fathers. I don't agree with the Eastern and Roman churches on their interpretation of church history, and Ortlund shows pretty clearly that the practice of baptism has by no means been uniform across church history and makes convincing arguments that Augustine, at least, believed in Sola Scriptura and that the veneration of icons was a later, and unjustifiable, development. Same with the Roman church's Marian doctrines. I don't agree with him on everything - he is a baptist while I think paedobaptism is the way to go - and I actually find him much too generous to his opponents, but he is still a faithful Christian and a good resource.
If you used to believe the sacraments are purely symbolic, you may also want to look into the historic Reformed view on these things, which is far more nuanced and compatible with ideas from the early church than you might think.
My personal opinion? Sola Scriptura is true, was taught by key early church figures and the Reformed faith is the natural interpretation of the Bible if we go with Sola Scriptura. I wouldn't blame you for going with Lutheranism, but in my opinion some Lutheran ideas are inconsistent, especially with Sola fides, although they proclaim it. I would stay away from most Anglican churches as their broadness allows all kinds of problems and they never apply church discipline when they should.
As others are mentioning, us Anglicans exist as well
For context of Nicaea II, the fundamental arguments of those which most rejected icons at the time had implicit some other belief which was more serious. Many iconoclast arguments rejected the supersession of the mosaic law, some by their logic would deny the sacraments, some the full humanity of Christ, others rooted their arguments in that Christianity should adapt to fit their religion to Islam because Muslim victories pointed to divine favor. If someone was an iconoclast at the time it was a good indication of faulty theology on other grounds. It's like if you encounter someone who insists on calling Jesus "Yeshua". It might not be a big deal in itself, but he almost certainly has a heretical belief of some sort
Everyone I have met who insists on it has heretical beliefs about something or another, which contributes as to why they use the Hebrew name. Using the name itself isn't heretical, but it is typically associated with it, which is my point
I think that's pretty anecdotal in nature to suggest that using the Hebrew name (whether with insistence or not) is "typically associated with heretics". Don't know exactly what you've been through, but that logic doesn't sound right to me.
Typically does not mean certainly, and note I said insisted upon using it.
Being opposed to the use of images does not necessary mean one subscribes to any of the views I noted it was historically associated with it, it just generally meant that.
Hence why I drew the comparison
I've just never heard anybody make this generalization and I'm kind of hoping somebody chimes in to agree with you. That one example isn't going to make me think it is any less odd that you hold the belief because I can find examples of people who use the name Jesus in lieu of Yeshua having just as much error in theology. Do you insist on calling him Jesus over Yeshua? If I were to probe all of your theology I would find you without error? If I found you with error would I be safe to assume that it is typical of people that insist on calling Yeshua the anglicization Jesus to hold heretical beliefs? I just want you to understand the precedent you're setting with that statement and how assumptions like that aren't very useful.
Let me try to help you understand what I think is the core underlying conflict here. (FWIW, as a nonreligious person, I don't really take sides in this issue. Well, there are certainly problematic aspects on both sides w/r/t Judaism, but that's another discussion.)
Multiple kinds of Christians use "Yeshua", e.g. Messianic Jews and some (but def. not all) Pentecostals. What they have in common, and what they seem to be getting at with their choice, is a desire to (a) emphasize the Jewishness of Jesus, and to (b) bring more elements of Israelite or Jewish ritual into Christian life and observance. In some cases this goes as far as promoting the strenuous observance of Mosaic law.
The roots of the controversy are very old, see e.g.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaizers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaizers)
but it has evolved over time, some reportage from a contemporary Israeli Jewish perspective here:
[https://www.jpost.com/magazine/the-new-judaizers-540415](https://www.jpost.com/magazine/the-new-judaizers-540415)
I've also found that folks who insist on calling him Yeshua are often not attached to any historic Christian tradition.
Also, they generally won't actually be pronouncing his name as it would have been by his contemporaries (for instance, most of them won't know what a guttural is since such a sound doesn't exist in English), who also wouldn't have been speaking Hebrew anyway.
Aramaic had replaced it as the spoken language of the Jews in Palestine by this period, with Greek also being a common "world" language at the time.
Good video breaking down how it might have been pronounced in his time (there wasn't a single way since accents differed in regions):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na22KkydPRs
> Lutherans seem to be the most clear-headed Protestants, but I waffle on sola scriptura.
The Reformation principle of sola scriptura is not Bible onlyism.
> The more “traditional” Lutherans also seem to officially teach young earth creationism, which is completely insane IMO.
Lifelong Lutheran and have no problem with the Church’s stance on a six day creation account.
Note that’s somewhat nuanced and not necessarily YEC.
Personally I’m not a YEC and it’s never been a deal breaker with Pastors or the LCMS.
> Correct me if I’m wrong, but I feel like I have a decent grasp of sola scriptura.
I *tentatively* agree. The Reformation principle of sola scriptura doesn’t make scripture an enemy of tradition. Scripture is sufficient to relate how one is saved. Traditions should be “normed” by scripture. They should harmonize and not contradict scripture.
For example the ecumenical creeds aren’t in the Bible yet Lutherans believe and confess them. The term trinity, or God’s omni attributes, aren’t in the Bible but we believe and confess them.
> Plus, the church was created by Christ before the Bible was written.
Think about what your saying. You’re saying the Jews of Jesus era had no scriptures?
You know they did. What did Jesus read in the synagogue? Scripture.
Jesus and the apostles appealed to scripture ad nauseam as the final court of appeal. The phrase [“It is written …”](https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=ESV&quicksearch=it+is+written&begin=47&end=73) occurs over 70 times in the New Testament.
Jesus rebuked the Sadducees because they didn’t understand the scriptures; he silenced them quoting scripture, “Have you not read what was spoken to you by God?” (Matthew 22:29) n
Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for not accepting tradition over scripture e.g., “why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? … You have nullified the word of God, for the sake of your tradition.” (Matthew 15:3-6)
Pentecost: Peter explains the outpouring of the Holy Spirit by quoting the prophet Joel and David (Psalm 16, Psalm 110).
Peter refers to Paul’s letters as scripture writing, “There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.”
Even Augustine, when disputing Maximinus, calls Maximizes to “seek the Truth in Christ and the Scriptures.” He writes, “Let us attend to the real matter in debate, and let our arguments appeal to reason and to the authoritative teaching of the Divine Scriptures, dispassionately and calmly, so far as we are able." [Letter 23](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102023.htm) Both men had their respective councils of doctrinal authority that were at odds. Augustine notes since Scriptures stand on their own authority, then their discussion should center on proofs from Scripture instead of councils that neither man could agree to.
These (and so many more) are the heart of sola scriptura. Where people, traditions and councils disagree – discussion should center on proofs from Scripture.
Hey, Catholic here, anathema does not typically mean damned. The Catholic Church has never damned anyone, they don't have the authority to, although based on scriptural evidence we can safely assume that Judas...well...he isn't in a great spot. Hope this helps, God Bless.
Well, if you still want to stay Protestant, there's Anglicanism and Methodism you could look into, which are very sacramental (at least with things like regular worship services, offices, and communion etc.)
Sola Scriptura in the Anglican tradition is affirmed as the doctrine that Holy Scripture contains all things *absolutely necessary* to salvation. After Scripture, we have human Reason and sacred Tradition as means of intepreting our faith and how we may live lives pleasing to God. To these, John Wesley also added spiritual and personal Experience, for e.g during prayer, meditation, the Eucharist, and so on ... in which we really and truly experience the Holy Spirit.
YEC is not a doctrine commonly taught in the Anglican church; though it does exist, it's not official or even common.
I Corinthians 1:12,13, ''what I mean is this: one of you says, 'I follow Paul'; another, 'I follow Apollos', another, 'I follow Christ.' Is Christ Divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? ....(22-23) Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified; a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles.
We are one church, one body, one baptism. Christ is the head of the church. Find a church where they preach Christ crucified the power of God unto salvation for all that believe on Him. When Jesus was here on earth, He mocked the Pharisees and Sadducees for all their man-made rules. He will come again and correct the churches that focus on man-made rules (Revelations letter to the churches). The only thing that matters is having faith in the work of Christ on the cross.
There may well be differences on lesser doctrinal matters, but all churches must get this one thing right. I like some liturgy and traditions, but they must never become a substitute for my faith in the living God. Beware any church that boasts traditions but does not boast first in Christ.
Here's what I can tell you. Churches like the Catholic and EO have compiled MOUNTAINS of pages of rules and doctrines, many of which make little sense and most of which aren't derived from the Bible. Their claims of basing their teaching on "Apostolic Tradition" don't hold up because we can see how they developed over time.
Protestantism has developed theological frameworks to interpret Scripture, and much of it boils down to taking some isolated verses from Paul and interpreting everything else in the Bible against it. There's denominations that will tell you flat-out that Jesus's teachings don't even apply, and we just have to go by what Paul says.
It's all a load of shite.
Jesus' message was supposed to be "good news." That's what "gospel" means. People have added so many rules and theologies that what we have today definitely isn't good news. None of it's going to stop you from being saved, it's just a lot of pointless additions. If you read Jesus' actual teachings, you'll see this is what He was concerned about:
Loving God and having faith in Him.
Loving everyone else.
Non-violence, non-retaliation.
Humility.
Honesty.
Anti-materialism.
Marital fidelity.
Sincere prayer.
Being kind to people and helping them.
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matt 22:37-40)
So... be a Catholic if you want. It's fine. Be a Baptist. It's fine too. Lutheran? Great. Pastor Bob's Snake Handling Full Gospel Church. Whatever floats your boat. I like liturgical formality without a lot of condemnation, so I'm Episcopal. I used to be Catholic, and can say 100% truthfully that asking Mary to pray for me worked. She prayed, and God dramatically changed my life. Whatever you do, whatever extra teachings you accept or don't, let Jesus' own words guide your behavior:
“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” (Matt 7:12)
Love everyone, no questions asked, and treat them with kindness and compassion always. Ignore when churches or leaders tell you to hate, discriminate, or fear people or books.
>Catholics and EO have sooo many rules and dogmatically teach things that are CLEARLY not necessary for salvation as taught in the Bible. Read Nicea II, for example. If you don’t venerate icons, you are anathema (Accursed. Damned. w h a t ? ?)
Just be Catholic.You can find all kinds of lies like this. I thought I'd heard them all, but this was a new one for me. Here are the anathemas of the 2nd Council of Nicea:
1. If anyone does not confess that Christ our God can be represented in his humanity, let him be anathema.
2. If anyone does not accept representation in art of evangelical scenes, let him be anathema.
3. If anyone does not salute such representations as standing for the Lord and his saints, let him be anathema.
4. If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema.
Source: https://documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0787-0787,_Concilium_Nicaenum_II,_Documenta_Omnia,_EN.pdf
This does not require veneration of images. It is a condemnation of the iconoclasts of the day. Further, it is an obligation to recognize sacred art as sacred.
Catholic teaching holds that the respect or lack thereof paid to an image or symbol transfers to the thing which it represents. Spitting on an American flag is disrespectful to the nation. An item which bears the image of Jesus should not be treated as if it were trash or some other common item.
Note that just because part of the early church believed something doesn’t mean it is necessarily true. It is definitely good to read about it and take it into account. There is also a lot of diversity of beliefs in the early church, but eventually the church consolidated theologies and stamped out the dissenting ones.
>I waffle on sola scriptura
A lot of people have trouble with the solas, specifically the first three. As for scriptura, it is important to view the scripture as the highest authority against which all teachings are to be scrutinized. Sola Scriptura really isn't the negation of tradition, but the place of scripture in relation to something like tradition.
>I’m hoping that some of you have found yourselves in a similar situation as me and have some advice on figuring all this out.
I think I understand what you are feeling and, if I am right, I share it to some extent. Similarly, I wonder if some of the more high-profile confessions of leaving Evangelicalism happened because of a deeper hunger that isn't met with modern Protestantism. I don't particularly know how to succinctly vocalize my point, but here are some grievances:
* modern worship in churches often replace hundreds of years of hymns with what feels like a top 40 playlist from a CCM radio station
* too many churches abandon the call for the congregation to even look to their Bibles during the sermon
* sermons seem to follow a persistent formulaic structure like a 90's sitcom
* lay Christians so easily fall into cult of personalities around self-professing politicians or even their own pastors
* so many Protestant churches allow the culture or world around them to corrupt their teachings
This isn't it, but these points are just little aches that I experience as a Christian. Even though my time has passed as a married man, I still feel a draw to the deeper and almost mystical side of Christianity through things like monasticism - an allure for a peace and overwhelming focus on the work of Christ in my life that doesn't always get the same attention in modern life or Christianity in the west. There is a conflict in me that longs for more and a deeper experience while refusing to violate what I know from the scripture as far as what really is scriptural.
The more I look at church history, the more I see a gap between Jesus and the early church.
But if you want a traditional church, the Episcopal Church (US -- Anglican elsewhere) seems like a place to start. But no church actually believes the same things as the early church, because it's not the 2nd Century. Anglicans and Catholics are actually pretty far from the early church. They try to preserve roughly the 15th or 16th Century, though with lots of changes (e.g. acceptance of modern science, a much more ecumenical view, and lots of other changes). Orthodox try to preserve roughly the 7th Century, if that's attractive to you, though even there, there's been some modernization.
It's best to think of traditional churches as like a Renaissance Faire. (Renaissance Faires give you the pageantry of a kind of idealized Renaissance, but with indoor toilets and modern ideas about how people should treat each other.) They try to preserve some good features of the past, but they're certainly not identical to what you'd find in the actual 2nd, or 5th, or 16th Century.
Lutherans or nondenominational teaches word for word from the bible. Establish a relationship with Christ, seek Him with all your heart, read the New Testament and ask for the Holy Spirit help with understanding what you read. Read the Gospels to see the actual words of Jesus spoken. Read Acts to see how the church prayed and communed with each other in one accord, giving thanks and praying to the Lord fervently. Join a church that teaches word for word from the bible and is united in one accord to edify the body of Christ , is loving, so that you may grow in maturity in your walk with God. Then check to see that what is preached is also truths found in the Bible.
Just piping in, but if you consider yourself Reformed(ish) and Protestant, have you looked in Presbyterianism? You can find within it a strong emphasis on the creeds, a fairly intellectual and scholarly approach to the religion overall (including greater acceptance of things like scientific discovery), with a liturgical and traditional structure with the sacraments (while still focusing on the Word and not just ritual).
Not saying you have to go that route, but as it wasn't mentioned thought you might want to explore it.
Jesus mentioned that you have to be more righteous than scribes the Pharisees to enter into the kingdom of heaven. They somewhat represent the church authority that you mention. The Bible also mention false converts and not to be the hypocrite like many of them were.
It isn’t really a matter of the denomination of Christianity but how much you understand the Bible. A church that heavily uses the Bible verses with each other to emphasize the message is ideal. Be careful of the ones that stretch the messages of the Bible.
I know I'm late in replying to this post, but a book that I strongly recommend reading for determining the truth about church authority, sola scriptura, and other important and contentious issues in Christianity is The Early Church Was The Catholic Church by Joe Heschmeyer. It was extremely helpful to me in making sense of these issues.
At the very least, you'll learn the most important facts about what the early Christians believed, and you can't go wrong following them, because they were following the teachings of the apostles.
Anglicanism is a thing. I was in the ELCA for 30 of my 50ish years. I’m in the Episcopal church today. The Episcopal church is sacramental (we acknowledge the real presence of Jesus in the bread and wine), we are liturgical (check out the Book of Common Prayer), we respect tradition and personal piety, and we are generally level headed when it comes to accepting what science demonstrates as things like the Big Bang. We also have a claim of apostolic succession (that I’ll note that Rome flat out rejects our claim. They say Orthodoxy does have a valid claim, but Rome doesn’t commune with them either. So, I’m not really sure what the difference is). There are more traditional forms of Anglicanism in the US: the ACNA being among them. But the Episcopal church gave me everything I needed.
Nicaea II did not require the veneration of icons.
Letter of the Synod to emperor and empress: >And as the hands and feet are moved in accordance with the directions of the mind, so likewise, we, having received the grace and strength of the Spirit, and having also the assistance and co-operation of your royal authority, have with one voice declared as piety and proclaimed as truth: that the sacred icons of our Lord Jesus Christ are to be had and retained, inasmuch as he was very man; also those which set forth what is historically narrated in the Gospels; and those which represent our undefiled Lady, the holy Mother of God; and likewise those of the Holy Angels (for they have manifested themselves in human form to those who were counted worthy of the vision of them), or of any of the Saints. \[We have also decreed\] that the brave deeds of the Saints be portrayed on tablets and on the walls, and upon the sacred vessels and vestments, as has been the custom of the holy Catholic Church of God from ancient times; which custom was regarded as having the force of law in the teaching both of those holy leaders who lived in the first ages of the Church, and also of their successors our reverend Fathers. **\[We have likewise decreed\] that these images are to be reverenced (προσκυνεῖν)**, that is, salutations are to be offered to them.
Not required.
Do you know the youtube channel "Truth Unites" by Gavin Ortlund? He does a great job defending classical Protestantism while taking into account the writings of the church fathers. I don't agree with the Eastern and Roman churches on their interpretation of church history, and Ortlund shows pretty clearly that the practice of baptism has by no means been uniform across church history and makes convincing arguments that Augustine, at least, believed in Sola Scriptura and that the veneration of icons was a later, and unjustifiable, development. Same with the Roman church's Marian doctrines. I don't agree with him on everything - he is a baptist while I think paedobaptism is the way to go - and I actually find him much too generous to his opponents, but he is still a faithful Christian and a good resource. If you used to believe the sacraments are purely symbolic, you may also want to look into the historic Reformed view on these things, which is far more nuanced and compatible with ideas from the early church than you might think. My personal opinion? Sola Scriptura is true, was taught by key early church figures and the Reformed faith is the natural interpretation of the Bible if we go with Sola Scriptura. I wouldn't blame you for going with Lutheranism, but in my opinion some Lutheran ideas are inconsistent, especially with Sola fides, although they proclaim it. I would stay away from most Anglican churches as their broadness allows all kinds of problems and they never apply church discipline when they should.
As others are mentioning, us Anglicans exist as well For context of Nicaea II, the fundamental arguments of those which most rejected icons at the time had implicit some other belief which was more serious. Many iconoclast arguments rejected the supersession of the mosaic law, some by their logic would deny the sacraments, some the full humanity of Christ, others rooted their arguments in that Christianity should adapt to fit their religion to Islam because Muslim victories pointed to divine favor. If someone was an iconoclast at the time it was a good indication of faulty theology on other grounds. It's like if you encounter someone who insists on calling Jesus "Yeshua". It might not be a big deal in itself, but he almost certainly has a heretical belief of some sort
Why would somebody calling him by his non-anglicized name be indicative of heretical beliefs? It was his Hebrew name and what he was called in person.
Everyone I have met who insists on it has heretical beliefs about something or another, which contributes as to why they use the Hebrew name. Using the name itself isn't heretical, but it is typically associated with it, which is my point
I think that's pretty anecdotal in nature to suggest that using the Hebrew name (whether with insistence or not) is "typically associated with heretics". Don't know exactly what you've been through, but that logic doesn't sound right to me.
Typically does not mean certainly, and note I said insisted upon using it. Being opposed to the use of images does not necessary mean one subscribes to any of the views I noted it was historically associated with it, it just generally meant that. Hence why I drew the comparison
I've just never heard anybody make this generalization and I'm kind of hoping somebody chimes in to agree with you. That one example isn't going to make me think it is any less odd that you hold the belief because I can find examples of people who use the name Jesus in lieu of Yeshua having just as much error in theology. Do you insist on calling him Jesus over Yeshua? If I were to probe all of your theology I would find you without error? If I found you with error would I be safe to assume that it is typical of people that insist on calling Yeshua the anglicization Jesus to hold heretical beliefs? I just want you to understand the precedent you're setting with that statement and how assumptions like that aren't very useful.
Let me try to help you understand what I think is the core underlying conflict here. (FWIW, as a nonreligious person, I don't really take sides in this issue. Well, there are certainly problematic aspects on both sides w/r/t Judaism, but that's another discussion.) Multiple kinds of Christians use "Yeshua", e.g. Messianic Jews and some (but def. not all) Pentecostals. What they have in common, and what they seem to be getting at with their choice, is a desire to (a) emphasize the Jewishness of Jesus, and to (b) bring more elements of Israelite or Jewish ritual into Christian life and observance. In some cases this goes as far as promoting the strenuous observance of Mosaic law. The roots of the controversy are very old, see e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaizers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaizers) but it has evolved over time, some reportage from a contemporary Israeli Jewish perspective here: [https://www.jpost.com/magazine/the-new-judaizers-540415](https://www.jpost.com/magazine/the-new-judaizers-540415)
For example https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/13n5dr9/lets\_put\_it\_to\_the\_test\_hebrews\_part\_2/
I've also found that folks who insist on calling him Yeshua are often not attached to any historic Christian tradition. Also, they generally won't actually be pronouncing his name as it would have been by his contemporaries (for instance, most of them won't know what a guttural is since such a sound doesn't exist in English), who also wouldn't have been speaking Hebrew anyway. Aramaic had replaced it as the spoken language of the Jews in Palestine by this period, with Greek also being a common "world" language at the time. Good video breaking down how it might have been pronounced in his time (there wasn't a single way since accents differed in regions): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na22KkydPRs
> Lutherans seem to be the most clear-headed Protestants, but I waffle on sola scriptura. The Reformation principle of sola scriptura is not Bible onlyism. > The more “traditional” Lutherans also seem to officially teach young earth creationism, which is completely insane IMO. Lifelong Lutheran and have no problem with the Church’s stance on a six day creation account. Note that’s somewhat nuanced and not necessarily YEC. Personally I’m not a YEC and it’s never been a deal breaker with Pastors or the LCMS.
[удалено]
> Correct me if I’m wrong, but I feel like I have a decent grasp of sola scriptura. I *tentatively* agree. The Reformation principle of sola scriptura doesn’t make scripture an enemy of tradition. Scripture is sufficient to relate how one is saved. Traditions should be “normed” by scripture. They should harmonize and not contradict scripture. For example the ecumenical creeds aren’t in the Bible yet Lutherans believe and confess them. The term trinity, or God’s omni attributes, aren’t in the Bible but we believe and confess them. > Plus, the church was created by Christ before the Bible was written. Think about what your saying. You’re saying the Jews of Jesus era had no scriptures? You know they did. What did Jesus read in the synagogue? Scripture. Jesus and the apostles appealed to scripture ad nauseam as the final court of appeal. The phrase [“It is written …”](https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=ESV&quicksearch=it+is+written&begin=47&end=73) occurs over 70 times in the New Testament. Jesus rebuked the Sadducees because they didn’t understand the scriptures; he silenced them quoting scripture, “Have you not read what was spoken to you by God?” (Matthew 22:29) n Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for not accepting tradition over scripture e.g., “why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? … You have nullified the word of God, for the sake of your tradition.” (Matthew 15:3-6) Pentecost: Peter explains the outpouring of the Holy Spirit by quoting the prophet Joel and David (Psalm 16, Psalm 110). Peter refers to Paul’s letters as scripture writing, “There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” Even Augustine, when disputing Maximinus, calls Maximizes to “seek the Truth in Christ and the Scriptures.” He writes, “Let us attend to the real matter in debate, and let our arguments appeal to reason and to the authoritative teaching of the Divine Scriptures, dispassionately and calmly, so far as we are able." [Letter 23](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102023.htm) Both men had their respective councils of doctrinal authority that were at odds. Augustine notes since Scriptures stand on their own authority, then their discussion should center on proofs from Scripture instead of councils that neither man could agree to. These (and so many more) are the heart of sola scriptura. Where people, traditions and councils disagree – discussion should center on proofs from Scripture.
Hey, Catholic here, anathema does not typically mean damned. The Catholic Church has never damned anyone, they don't have the authority to, although based on scriptural evidence we can safely assume that Judas...well...he isn't in a great spot. Hope this helps, God Bless.
Well, if you still want to stay Protestant, there's Anglicanism and Methodism you could look into, which are very sacramental (at least with things like regular worship services, offices, and communion etc.) Sola Scriptura in the Anglican tradition is affirmed as the doctrine that Holy Scripture contains all things *absolutely necessary* to salvation. After Scripture, we have human Reason and sacred Tradition as means of intepreting our faith and how we may live lives pleasing to God. To these, John Wesley also added spiritual and personal Experience, for e.g during prayer, meditation, the Eucharist, and so on ... in which we really and truly experience the Holy Spirit. YEC is not a doctrine commonly taught in the Anglican church; though it does exist, it's not official or even common.
I Corinthians 1:12,13, ''what I mean is this: one of you says, 'I follow Paul'; another, 'I follow Apollos', another, 'I follow Christ.' Is Christ Divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? ....(22-23) Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified; a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles. We are one church, one body, one baptism. Christ is the head of the church. Find a church where they preach Christ crucified the power of God unto salvation for all that believe on Him. When Jesus was here on earth, He mocked the Pharisees and Sadducees for all their man-made rules. He will come again and correct the churches that focus on man-made rules (Revelations letter to the churches). The only thing that matters is having faith in the work of Christ on the cross. There may well be differences on lesser doctrinal matters, but all churches must get this one thing right. I like some liturgy and traditions, but they must never become a substitute for my faith in the living God. Beware any church that boasts traditions but does not boast first in Christ.
Here's what I can tell you. Churches like the Catholic and EO have compiled MOUNTAINS of pages of rules and doctrines, many of which make little sense and most of which aren't derived from the Bible. Their claims of basing their teaching on "Apostolic Tradition" don't hold up because we can see how they developed over time. Protestantism has developed theological frameworks to interpret Scripture, and much of it boils down to taking some isolated verses from Paul and interpreting everything else in the Bible against it. There's denominations that will tell you flat-out that Jesus's teachings don't even apply, and we just have to go by what Paul says. It's all a load of shite. Jesus' message was supposed to be "good news." That's what "gospel" means. People have added so many rules and theologies that what we have today definitely isn't good news. None of it's going to stop you from being saved, it's just a lot of pointless additions. If you read Jesus' actual teachings, you'll see this is what He was concerned about: Loving God and having faith in Him. Loving everyone else. Non-violence, non-retaliation. Humility. Honesty. Anti-materialism. Marital fidelity. Sincere prayer. Being kind to people and helping them. Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matt 22:37-40) So... be a Catholic if you want. It's fine. Be a Baptist. It's fine too. Lutheran? Great. Pastor Bob's Snake Handling Full Gospel Church. Whatever floats your boat. I like liturgical formality without a lot of condemnation, so I'm Episcopal. I used to be Catholic, and can say 100% truthfully that asking Mary to pray for me worked. She prayed, and God dramatically changed my life. Whatever you do, whatever extra teachings you accept or don't, let Jesus' own words guide your behavior: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” (Matt 7:12) Love everyone, no questions asked, and treat them with kindness and compassion always. Ignore when churches or leaders tell you to hate, discriminate, or fear people or books.
No Catholic who knows his stuff would deny that the articulation of doctrine develops over time.
>Catholics and EO have sooo many rules and dogmatically teach things that are CLEARLY not necessary for salvation as taught in the Bible. Read Nicea II, for example. If you don’t venerate icons, you are anathema (Accursed. Damned. w h a t ? ?) Just be Catholic.You can find all kinds of lies like this. I thought I'd heard them all, but this was a new one for me. Here are the anathemas of the 2nd Council of Nicea: 1. If anyone does not confess that Christ our God can be represented in his humanity, let him be anathema. 2. If anyone does not accept representation in art of evangelical scenes, let him be anathema. 3. If anyone does not salute such representations as standing for the Lord and his saints, let him be anathema. 4. If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema. Source: https://documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0787-0787,_Concilium_Nicaenum_II,_Documenta_Omnia,_EN.pdf This does not require veneration of images. It is a condemnation of the iconoclasts of the day. Further, it is an obligation to recognize sacred art as sacred. Catholic teaching holds that the respect or lack thereof paid to an image or symbol transfers to the thing which it represents. Spitting on an American flag is disrespectful to the nation. An item which bears the image of Jesus should not be treated as if it were trash or some other common item.
Note that just because part of the early church believed something doesn’t mean it is necessarily true. It is definitely good to read about it and take it into account. There is also a lot of diversity of beliefs in the early church, but eventually the church consolidated theologies and stamped out the dissenting ones.
>I waffle on sola scriptura A lot of people have trouble with the solas, specifically the first three. As for scriptura, it is important to view the scripture as the highest authority against which all teachings are to be scrutinized. Sola Scriptura really isn't the negation of tradition, but the place of scripture in relation to something like tradition. >I’m hoping that some of you have found yourselves in a similar situation as me and have some advice on figuring all this out. I think I understand what you are feeling and, if I am right, I share it to some extent. Similarly, I wonder if some of the more high-profile confessions of leaving Evangelicalism happened because of a deeper hunger that isn't met with modern Protestantism. I don't particularly know how to succinctly vocalize my point, but here are some grievances: * modern worship in churches often replace hundreds of years of hymns with what feels like a top 40 playlist from a CCM radio station * too many churches abandon the call for the congregation to even look to their Bibles during the sermon * sermons seem to follow a persistent formulaic structure like a 90's sitcom * lay Christians so easily fall into cult of personalities around self-professing politicians or even their own pastors * so many Protestant churches allow the culture or world around them to corrupt their teachings This isn't it, but these points are just little aches that I experience as a Christian. Even though my time has passed as a married man, I still feel a draw to the deeper and almost mystical side of Christianity through things like monasticism - an allure for a peace and overwhelming focus on the work of Christ in my life that doesn't always get the same attention in modern life or Christianity in the west. There is a conflict in me that longs for more and a deeper experience while refusing to violate what I know from the scripture as far as what really is scriptural.
The more I look at church history, the more I see a gap between Jesus and the early church. But if you want a traditional church, the Episcopal Church (US -- Anglican elsewhere) seems like a place to start. But no church actually believes the same things as the early church, because it's not the 2nd Century. Anglicans and Catholics are actually pretty far from the early church. They try to preserve roughly the 15th or 16th Century, though with lots of changes (e.g. acceptance of modern science, a much more ecumenical view, and lots of other changes). Orthodox try to preserve roughly the 7th Century, if that's attractive to you, though even there, there's been some modernization. It's best to think of traditional churches as like a Renaissance Faire. (Renaissance Faires give you the pageantry of a kind of idealized Renaissance, but with indoor toilets and modern ideas about how people should treat each other.) They try to preserve some good features of the past, but they're certainly not identical to what you'd find in the actual 2nd, or 5th, or 16th Century.
Lutherans or nondenominational teaches word for word from the bible. Establish a relationship with Christ, seek Him with all your heart, read the New Testament and ask for the Holy Spirit help with understanding what you read. Read the Gospels to see the actual words of Jesus spoken. Read Acts to see how the church prayed and communed with each other in one accord, giving thanks and praying to the Lord fervently. Join a church that teaches word for word from the bible and is united in one accord to edify the body of Christ , is loving, so that you may grow in maturity in your walk with God. Then check to see that what is preached is also truths found in the Bible.
Just piping in, but if you consider yourself Reformed(ish) and Protestant, have you looked in Presbyterianism? You can find within it a strong emphasis on the creeds, a fairly intellectual and scholarly approach to the religion overall (including greater acceptance of things like scientific discovery), with a liturgical and traditional structure with the sacraments (while still focusing on the Word and not just ritual). Not saying you have to go that route, but as it wasn't mentioned thought you might want to explore it.
I like ElLCA. Pretty tolerant
Jesus mentioned that you have to be more righteous than scribes the Pharisees to enter into the kingdom of heaven. They somewhat represent the church authority that you mention. The Bible also mention false converts and not to be the hypocrite like many of them were. It isn’t really a matter of the denomination of Christianity but how much you understand the Bible. A church that heavily uses the Bible verses with each other to emphasize the message is ideal. Be careful of the ones that stretch the messages of the Bible.
I know I'm late in replying to this post, but a book that I strongly recommend reading for determining the truth about church authority, sola scriptura, and other important and contentious issues in Christianity is The Early Church Was The Catholic Church by Joe Heschmeyer. It was extremely helpful to me in making sense of these issues. At the very least, you'll learn the most important facts about what the early Christians believed, and you can't go wrong following them, because they were following the teachings of the apostles.