And yet you see no problem using them in worship. You seem to implicitly understand the NT was not meant to be an exhaustive church manual. The early church had no notion of this as well, especially given the fact that canon wasn't even finalized until the late 4th century.
These things we have added do not distort the gospel or syncretize religion, as deep mystic ritual with icons and other things do. Of course, some aise issues like the Campbelliests with instruments, using the same logic as you regardng the early fathers. (showing that your line of argumentation is just as much apart of the game of sectarianism). To me, those things are non-essential, (I can take them or leave them, and I agree somewhat with the EOC's point on pews) and I don't accuse people who do not use them of not following the apostolic tradition.
Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, commanded that the traditions be kept, whether delivered orally or written. He didn't indicate that the oral was only to be kept until some sort of NT canon was to be formed (especially since Paul never even mentioned a NT canon.) Paul's assumption was that they could in fact keep the oral traditions as well as the written.
And you are still asuming that these "oral" traditions were a totally different set of teachings isolated from everything else.
Your assumption however is that they must have gotten off track right at the beginning since they don't agree with you.
The NT warns us of error creeping in right as they wrote.
Yet this schmistatic group of denominations was foreign to the thought of the NT writers and the other early Christians.
It's the concept of organizations and magisteriums that were foreigh to the scripture. Whether the Church sets up one of these institutions or a multitude of them is nto the point. The solution is not just to choose one over the others becase it is the oldest, or whatever.
Also the assumption that everyone agrees on the "essentials" is not necessarily shared by those outside your denomination. Others would include things in the "essentials" that you call "nonessential", and there is no way to know whose "essentials" are the right ones (no more or less) without begging the question in favor of your own minimal list based on your particular doctrinal stance.
That's why I basically limited the criterion to "Christ and His death, resurrection and salvation". If other men want to rise up and make these other issues (which I criticize in my writings as "one-upmanship, anyway), then that's on them. (that's what started the problem int he first place. There is nothign I can do about them. Once again, joining your group that also adds its own list of other "essentials" will not help the situation.
The difference is the Holy Spirit was promised to guide the Church into all truth. Just because you don't know what was part of the oral tradition (outside of what was also written down) doesn't mean the early church didn't know. Instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt when they substantially agree, and with no historical record of controversy in these areas, you prefer to theorize about gradually encroaching errors (since they disagree with you) and make the baseless charge of "paganism".
No, you're side is the one who starts speculating on the oral tradition, and projecting them back to the NT because you see some of your ideas were believed by some early fathers. (and even they could be misinterpreted) "give them the benefit of the doubt"? That is really giving you the benefit of the doubt. That is not how we build doctrine and practice. That is not what the Bereans did. They could see the apostles doctrine substatiated, even if they may not have seen it in a different light before. There was no speculation, but then, we'll just give then the benefit of the doubt and take their word for it. That's how people are tricked into error, not how they find truth.
And if you appeal to the Holy Spirit, then once again, there has to be some cuoff period where the Church was led into all truth, and then when it stopped and fractuured into all the denominations. Being that man were men all along, and most would not follow the Spirit's guidance, we cannot blame just the docetists or enlightenment, as if they were all powerful influences that quelched the Spirit. The Spirit is gentle and lets men go their way, and they would begin to fall away right away.
But no one in the history of the church took these as literal observances. The Eucharist and belief about the Real Presence are there (without dispute except from docetists) from the beginning and was the central aspect of Christian worship.
No, those are later interpretations of both the NT and the early writings. And remember, the Jews mistook christ's words about His flesh and blood the same way, and were offended. So something like that was a deep truth that could easily be misunderstood by those not led by the Spirit. Still, I bring that up, because the rationale you are using would lead one to take those other things literally.
But you're begging the question assuming they made it up (disagreeing with church historians by the way) and charging them with "idolatry" because they didn't share your Zwinglian views on the Eucharist. With no record of historical controversy (like there was over the various gnostic and other heretical errors), one can more easily charge Zwingli and his followers of making stuff up (1500 years later) about the Eucharist.
Once again; there is only one spiritual presence of Christ, and that is the Holy Spirit. What you are suggesting would necessitate a fourth person of the Godhead. (Just like the "parousia" of the preterists). Or you can try to say that the Holy Spirit inhabits bread and wine. But that is also foreign to the scriptures. The Holy Spirit inhabits US as we sit and partake of the elements.
Your final court of appeal is always what the church believed and saw no controversy with. But these still are just men, who believed other wrong things (Antisemitism was on the rise, and explains the rejection of the semiapostolic Passover Communion), and quashed things a majority (often centered in almighty Rome) disagreed with. Once again, minus the scant evidence we have for the quartodeciman debate, we would think that was no controversy as well.
Please pardon us if we do not want to place so much faith in men. Once again, you acknowledge men went astray, and on a wide scale, and it had to begin somwhere.
Regarding folks being gathered in Christ's name, the Arians gathered in Christ name? Were they part of the Church? The Mormons (more than two or three) are gathered "in Christ's name" today. Are they part of the church? If not, who are you to tell them otherwise based on the definition you just gave?
They change who Christ is. With all of the different doctrines of all of the different denominations, they stll share the ortodox concept of Christ. Groups like those are not considered "denominations", but cults. Are you accusing all of the denominations of worshipping a false Christ?
Again without any historical record of controversy, and no dissenting voices (except among gnostics) on these two issues, then, yes, the historical answer was that this was what the church believed without dispute on these two areas.
That's the post-apostolic Church. We cannot project this back to the NT. Power bases were forming that quickly quashed and buried dispute. And once again, the doctrine was very prone to misunderstanding.
You go to great lengths pointing out the controversy surrounding the celebration of Pascha, and there is indeed historical evidence for this. Yet nowhere do we find orthodox christian writers condemning the real presence or the baptismal regeneration. On the contrary, all who mentioned baptism and the eucharist subscribed to these beliefs (or at least gave no hint of controversy as these two doctrines are stated very early).
All those who mentioned it. Giving you your benefit of the doubt that this is not being misunderstood, you cannot project this on all those who didn't mention it (including NT writers). Those trying to bring in new understandings of things gained a lot of influence, and more fervently used writings (which we see warned about by Paul), and eventually buried those that did not agree. It is known by historians that a lot was lost in the period between Peter and Paul and the earliest fathers, by which time the church was very different. People even wonder where the writings of some of the apostles helpers are.
So this is special pleading. Yet, the church didn't come to a consensus on the canon until the end of the 4th century, while there was no record of dispute regarding the real presence or baptismal regeneration during the whole time up that point. Yet you assume that Spirit could not have guided the church to this consistent agreement of these two doctrines, an agreement which predated by far the finalization of the NT canon.
Once again, you're looking at a council where it was "officially decided" as the "consensus" of the "canon". While there may have been some question about some books; had a general idea of which books were genuine. And then if you insist that other books were recognized before that, then some of these interpretations of doctrines could be coming form these other sources, rather than those sources coming from apostolic tradition.
The Spirit's guidance did not prevent schismatics and heretics from breaking off from the Church during the first millenium of its history (of which there is historical record). Why do you suppose things changed during the second?
They didn't change. The difference was that the Roman Church had gotten so corrupt (with its indulgences and other abuses) that people en-masse began leaving, and the advent of printing led to the widespread publication of the scriptures (which had been kept away from the laity. I wonder if the Eastern Church did this as well), so now, people began forming new organizations. Originally, Luther and others did not intend this, but aimed to reform the Catholic church. But Rome was set in her ways and expelled the Reformers. Riught there is anpother reason Rome was just as much to blame for all the schisms. Theyc ouldn;t admit error, and then herself separated those who could no longer go long with it.
All along, since the first Milennium, the Spirit was not being followed, for things to get this bad in the first place. So that 1000 years, when you had this all powerful organization, and its sister int he East, were not as homogenous as you make it sound like; only controlled by the institution. But hat institution was composed of men, and they did and taught many things wrong, and appealing to apostolic tradition is no justification. So that is not what we are to go back to.
You forget that just as Scriptures are of both divine and human authorship, so is the church that Christ founded a divine-human organism, "the fullness of Him who fills all in all" (Eph 1:23) and not just a merely human "organization."
But once again, if your application of this were true, then no part of the Church would have ever gone into error. The leaders' humanity would be overridden in spite of thesmselves, and any abues we saw are just right, regardless. And then all the schisms remain unexplained. Either they were a result of the enlightenment overpowering the Spirit, or the Spirit stepped away and allowed men to do what they want. But if it's that, then this could have occurred much earlier than the Reformation period.
Or perhaps the problem is once again looking at the Church as the visible "organization", and thus identifying that organization as the "divine-human organism". The organism is the invisible body of those who trust in christ as their Lord, regardless of the organization they are nominally afiliated with. Together, they make up the visible Church. But we must not confuse this with an organization formed around it. This is what you consistently focus on, to be comparing your "one true Church" with "all the schmistatic denominations". Those are orgnizations you are looking at. They are all based on
control; whether one magisterium controls all, or people break away from it, but then maintain their own circle of control. Forget the organizations for a moment, and you will see the real divine-human organism!
