Is Catholicism a Branch of Christianity or Something Else?

Theology
105

Brother, see, I’m not a hyper-Calvinist, but what I wrote was beyond hyper-Calvinism — borderline Zwinglian and went even beyond Scriptures and added beyond Calvin-Zwingli. I assumed everyone already knew the nuances of Orthodox theology. The truth is, many discussions I’ve seen are filled with misconceptions — even ideas that the early Church explicitly condemned — and yet they’re presented as if “the Orthodox support this or that”.
Brother, test answers like Bereans with a sledgehammer.
Your endorsement of 2 Tim 3:16-17’s artios as rendering all tradition mere ballast is Motanist individualism, a 2nd century heresy condemned for claiming direct spiritual revelation overrides communal authority, isolating believers from the Church as the pillar and bulwark of Truth (1 Tim 3:15). St. Basil the Great On the Holy Spirit, AD 375 harmonizes this: Scripture is sufficent materially, but unwritten apostolic traditions (e.g the Sign of the Cross, triple immersion baptism) provide its formal context, as “some we have from written treaching, others from the tradition of the apostles handed down in mystery”. By agreein that tradition drags the Church off couse, i think you contradict your own affirmation of “commanded” acts like baptism (Matt 28:19), which Paul places within ecclesial order (1 Cor 12:13), which is a subjective heremenutic where personal hearing trumps the fathers’ consensus, St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.4.1) warns this leads to Gnostic fragmentation. This presumption was drawn from Calvin’s dismissal of traditions as human invention, which overlooks how the fathers, martyred for this unity, preserved the gospel.
If tradition is ballast, how do you avoid deeper Montanism, where even creeds like Nicea become unnecessary layers?
Your view for canon formation creates a historical vaccum, presuming intuitive recognition without councils, yet this inaccuracy ignores the fathers’ labors. Brother, I would like to gently correct you, St. Athanasius in Festal Letter 39, AD 367 listed the canon amid Arian disputes, and St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.11.8), relied on apostolic succession to distinguish from apocrypha. By agreeing councils merely formalized the “plain”, brother…Without the Church’s Authority (Acts 15:28, “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”), how do you reject texts like the Gospel of Thomas or affirm Hebrews’ inclusion (assuming you didn’t live with Christ and the apostles but rather were in the year 300AD)
This leads to deeper inconsistency, if the Spirit speaks directly without “episcopal microphones”, why need apostles’ foundation (Eph 2:20), at all, potenially dissolving into a Quaker-like inner light heresy, that even Calvin resisted. The Fathers who died defending the canon (e.g St. Polycarp refusing to burn incense to Caesar, affirming Scriptural turth in Martyrdom of Polycarp 9.3), embody the continuity. On 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and Colossians 2:8, you said “tactical nuke against anything that stands next to scripture” self-contradicts, as its blasts Zwingli’s symbolic sacraments, as “next to” without explicit commandment for memorialism. Paul mandates oral traditions (2 Thess 2:15) and Col 2:8 targets Judaizing philosophies, not apostolic customs, St. Clement of Rome (First Epistle 42-44 AD96) applies this to episcopal order learned from Peter and Paul. i think that this nuke hitting Orthodoxy’s icons, attested early in catacombs, Dura-Europos AD232, its nothing but inconoclastic heresy, condemned at Nicea II, presuming from Calvin’s aniconism, not from Scriptures, and ignoring St. John of Damascus (On the Divine Images I.16, “I worship the Creator of matter who became matter for my sake”.

Brother, St. Augustine also said in Sermon 272, “This bread is the Body of Christ”, why is St. Augustine self-contradicting…hint: read the context of On Christian Doctrine (III.16.24).
Church as a gathering, not mystical grace factory (Eph 2:20) is another form of Nestorianism, fracturing Christ’s hypostatic union with His Body (Eph 5:29-32, “No one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes it, as Christ does the Church”). St. Cyril of Alexandria (That Christ is One, AD 438) refutes this dualism:"THe Church is one with Christ as the body with the head, indivisible."If you agree with Zwingli and tell you turn Church into tollbooth, then you contradict your Hebrews 10:10 affirmation as Christ’s “once-for-all” is participated mystically (1 Cor 10:16, “The Cup…is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?”, leading to deeper Nestorianism. How can grace be “free” without the visible Church (Matt 18:17), potentially dissolving into invisible-Church Gnosticism that confuses even reformed distinctions?On Sacraments, endorsing them as signs, and John 6’s “belief alone” is an antinomianism heresy, denying efficacy despite Paul’s warning of death for unworthy reception (1 Cor 11:30), presuming from Zwingli memorialism, not scripture. St. Justin Martyr’s apostolic realism (First Apology 66: “The Eucharist is the flesh and blood of Jesus”). You agree Hebrews 10:10 precludes “ongoing altars” but then it contradicts the thief’s faith within emerging Church practice (Acts 2:42):If sacraments are bloat, then why affirm Acts 16:31’s “believe and be saved” with baptism (Acts 16:33), riskin full antinomanism where obedience is optional (James 2:17)?Your dismissal of theosis as flattery, ignores St. Athanasius On the Incarnation 54: ”God became man that we might become partakers of the divine nature”a core apostolic doctrine, leadning to semi-Pelagian irony where one affirms sanctification through the Word but reject its embodied form. 1 Cor 15:3-4 is communal (proclaimed in liturgy) as St. Ignatius attests. Matthew 15:9 condemns hypocrisy, not apostolic worship.

106

@SincereSeeker “I stand on Scripture alone and believe salvation is by grace alone through faith in Christ alone. According to passages like Galatians 1:6-9 and Ephesians 2:8-9, any teaching that adds works or human merit to the gospel is not the gospel taught in the Bible. That’s why I personally cannot embrace certain Catholic doctrines on justification or grace, because they differ from what Scripture says.

107

It’s not a matter of persecution or empty ritual, it’s the gospel. Scripture is clear: “If righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose” (Galatians 2:21). Catholicism and Orthodoxy both teach salvation through Christ + sacraments/priests/traditions. That’s not the gospel Paul preached. A Christian is someone who has been born again by faith in Christ alone (John 3:3, Romans 10:9). Anything less or added is a false hope.

108

Brother @Samuel_23,

You just delivered a firehose of footnotes, saints, and citations, so let me return the favor with some unfiltered clarity from the Word of God. Because buried underneath all that patristic perfume is the stench of a quietly toxic assumption: that Christ’s Word needs help.

Let’s not dodge the core issue. Your entire argument hinges on this: Scripture isn’t enough. It needs oral traditions, bishops, liturgies, and councils to activate it like some kind of theological microwave. You say this isn’t Montanism? Fine. But what you’ve constructed is just a dressed-up replacement. A different mediator. A different lens. A different gospel.

Now let’s peel this onion.

You accused me of Montanism for saying Scripture alone is sufficient. But 2 Timothy 3:16–17 explicitly says the Word is able to make the man of God complete, equipped for every good work. Not some works. Not “until the liturgy fills in the gaps.” Every good work. If Basil the Great says we need unwritten traditions to complete the picture, then guess what? Basil needs to sit down. Because when his quotes collide with the plain testimony of Scripture, I know who I’m choosing. The Spirit doesn’t stutter.

As for apostolic tradition, Paul wasn’t handing down a chain of incense recipes and icon blueprints. He was passing on the doctrine he received directly from Christ. And that doctrine is now inscripturated. So when you cite 2 Thessalonians 2:15, you’re invoking a tradition that has since been written down. It’s in the text now, not floating around in some bishop’s mitre or monk’s chant.

You brought up the canon like the Bible needed a Vatican stamp of approval. Wrong. The Church didn’t authorize the Word. The Word authorized the Church. The sheep didn’t create the Shepherd’s voice. They recognized it. John 10:27. The Spirit bore witness, not because of episcopal succession, but because God knows how to preserve His Word without outsourcing it to councils, creeds, or Cappadocian clerics.

And then you called my rejection of sacramental grace Nestorian. Really? Brother, Christ is one Person with two natures, but let’s not confuse that with a religious institution pretending to be His bloodstream. You say the Church is Christ’s Body, so it must mediate grace. By that logic, when your foot falls asleep, you need a priest to wake it up. Christ does not need a mystical tollbooth to hand out what He already purchased with His blood. Grace is not chained behind an altar rail. It’s received by faith.

You quoted Paul saying the cup is communion with Christ’s blood. Amen. But Paul also said in Romans 5:1 that we have peace with God through faith. He didn’t say, “through the Eucharist performed by a bearded man in brocade.” Grace is free or it is not grace. The Lord’s Supper is a proclamation, not a re-sacrifice. Baptism is a testimony, not a pipeline to regeneration. Hebrews 10:10 says we are sanctified once for all through the offering of Christ’s body. Not monthly. Not mystically. Once.

And your line about icons being early in church history? So were heresies. That doesn’t sanctify them. God smashed the bronze serpent when Israel made it an idol. And He’s still in the idol-smashing business. The early catacombs could’ve had murals of Moses in a Mets jersey. If it’s not commanded, it’s not required. And if it’s replacing faith with visual aids, it’s a golden calf with a nicer frame.

You said rejecting theosis is Pelagian. I say importing theosis is Gnostic. No, we do not become God. We are conformed to Christ. That is sanctification. Not metaphysical absorption. Not deification-lite. God is holy. We are dust. Let’s keep the difference crystal.

Brother, I appreciate your fire, but the question isn’t whether you can find a saint to support your view. The question is whether the apostles would recognize it. Would Peter, Paul, and John nod approvingly at chrism, icons, liturgies, sacraments, and tradition layered like spiritual scaffolding on top of the cross? Or would they say what Paul already did in Galatians 1?

If anyone preaches another gospel, let him be accursed.

This is not about Protestant minimalism or Orthodox maximalism. This is about whether Christ is sufficient or not.

Choose wisely.

Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.

109

Brother @bdavidc,

You’re right and I appreciate the correction. You’ve already been crystal clear that Catholicism preaches a false gospel and you’ve stood firm on Christ alone, Scripture alone, faith alone, grace alone. That’s the line and you’ve drawn it well.

If I pulled you into a rebuke meant for someone else, that was a misfire. You weren’t drifting, you were already defending the gospel. No confusion there.

Thanks for standing where it counts. We need more of that.

Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.

1 Like
110

Hi, @Samuel_23! I’ve been coping barely by God’s grace with a great amount of intense pain because of a small fall I did. I’ve had chronic pain for 39 years, but I don’t ever remember it being this bad. It’s a flare-up of my fibromyalgia as well as a lot of arthritis returning to my lower back 15 years after I had back surgery.

I’m praying that God will use medical means to ease my pain so that I will be able to concentrate on my writing again. I ask your prayers for me too.

What’s happening with you and yours?

111

Hi! I’m so sorry to hear about the intensity of your pain—it sounds incredibly challenging, especially with everything compounding after so many years of chronic issues.
I’m just going on with life, brother…
Praying, fasting, and attending the Church.

112

Ok, I’ll give credits where it is to be given. See, I’m not accusing anyone, I’m just pointing out what I feel is not right, that’s all.
Your emphasis on 2 Timothy 3:16–17’s artios (complete) as equipping without “gaps” for liturgy or tradition is a strong appeal to Scripture’s self-sufficiency, but it subtly intensifies the Montanist tendency in your earlier agreements, where individual “hearing” (John 10:27) overrides any communal role. Paul writes to Timothy as a leader in the Church (2 Timothy 1:6, “the gift of God that is in you through the laying on of my hands”), implying Scripture’s profitability unfolds within the ekklesia as “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). If the Spirit “doesn’t stutter,” why does Paul mandate oral paradosis alongside written (2 Thessalonians 2:15: “traditions… by word or by our letter”), and how do you avoid a deeper Montanist individualism that rejects even basic communal practices like the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23–26), which you affirm as “proclamation”? This presumption that all apostolic tradition is now “inscripturated” without “bishops’ mitres or monks’ chants” doesnt work when Scripture itself cites extra-biblical sources (Jude 9, 14–15, from Assumption of Moses and 1 Enoch), suggesting the Word’s completeness includes lived witness; if everything must be “commanded” explicitly, how do you reconcile your own non-scriptural elements, like structured Bible studies, without slipping into a view that dismisses all post-apostolic aids, including creeds against Arianism?
On the canon, your assertion that “the Word authorized the Church” (John 10:27) is a good stand for the Spirit’s preservation, but it deepens the historical vacuum in your position, as Scripture doesn’t self-list its books, disputes over Revelation or Hebrews required discernment through the Church’s witness (Acts 15:28: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”). If God preserves His Word “without outsourcing to councils or creeds,” why does Paul commend succession (2 Timothy 2:2: “entrust to faithful men who will teach others”), and how do you avoid a deeper anachronism that treats the Bible as a self-authenticating artifact, potentially leading to rejecting disputed texts like 2 Peter (contested early) or affirming apocrypha like the Gospel of Barnabas? This risks a Socinian-like skepticism of historical orthodoxy, where the Trinity (affirmed at Nicaea AD 325, drawing from Scripture like Matthew 28:19) becomes optional outsourcing—a trap that even Calvin avoided by citing councils selectively.
Again, it is reinforcing Nestorian fracture in your view, separating Christ’s divine work from His human Body (Ephesians 5:29–30: “Christ nourishes the Church as His own body”). Paul’s communion of the blood (1 Cor 10:16) and peace with God through faith (Rom 5:1) arent opposites but unified in the Church’s life. (Acts 2:42, “devoted to the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayers”). If grace is “free” without an “altar rail,” why does Paul warn of death for unworthy participation (1 Corinthians 11:30), implying efficacy, and how do you avoid deeper antinomianism, where “commanded” acts like baptism (Acts 2:38, “for the forgiveness of sins”) become optional testimonies, contradicting your own Hebrews 10:10 emphasis on sanctification?
But Scripture affirms images as types (Numbers 21:8–9, the bronze serpent lifted up like Christ in John 3:14), destroyed only for idolatry (2 Kings 18:4), not veneration. If “not commanded” means “not required,” how do you justify non-commanded elements like church buildings (Acts 2:46 notes house meetings) or hymn-singing (Ephesians 5:19), without falling into a deeper puritanism that rejects all visual or sensory aids, even Scripture’s own metaphors (Psalm 141:2, prayer as incense)? This leads a gnostic disembodiment, where the Incarnation (John 1:14) sanctifies matter, as the early Church’s catacomb art attests.
Reversal of theosis as “Gnostic” while affirming “conformed to Christ” (Romans 8:29) misses the point I want to put forward, that 2 Peter 1:4’s “partakers of the divine nature” as union, not absorption. a biblical truth that balances sovereignty and response (Philippians 2:12–13). Galatians 1:8 warning against “another gospel” targets Judaizers, not the apostles’ worship (Acts 2:42), but if Orthodoxy is layered scaffolding, how do you avoid accusing Paul of adding “layers” with bishops (Titus 1:5)? This leads to a deeper problem: if the apostles “wouldn’t recognize” liturgy, does that include their own breaking of bread (Acts 20:7), leading to a position that even reformers like Luther (who retained sacraments) found excessive?
I value your fire for truth, and these questions are offered in brotherhood.
Peace
Sam

113

@Samuel_23, thanks for your response. The wonderful action that God did was first of all that he gave me his peace of Philippians 4:6-7 after I lamented my pain 60 times. That was 26 years ago. As a result, he enabled me to accept pain as part of my life; my responsibility was to control it, as he gave me the means. My lower back will probably need surgery, hopefully sooner instead of later, because I haven’t been sleeping enough. I ask your prayers. Thanks.

1 Like
114

Brother @Samuel_23

I respect the effort you’re putting in, and I appreciate the tone here. You’re not dodging the hard questions, and that’s rare. But let’s pull this all the way into the light.

You’re trying to walk a tightrope between sola Scriptura and sacramental scaffolding. You say Scripture is “profitable,” but then turn around and make it dependent on unwritten tradition to function. That’s not balance. That’s a theological shell game.

You say my reading leans toward Montanist individualism because I affirm the believer can hear Christ’s voice through the Word alone. But that’s not Montanism. That’s biblical Christianity. Jesus said, “My sheep hear My voice”… not “My sheep hear Me if they have a bishop in earshot.” And yes, Paul tells Timothy to guard what was entrusted to him, but that’s not code for post-apostolic liturgies, incense clouds, and triple-dunk baptisms. The command was to guard the gospel, the actual one.

Your use of Jude and 1 Enoch misses the point. Jude quoting a known text isn’t a blank check to canonize all extra-biblical traditions. Paul quoted pagan poets too. Doesn’t make them prophets. Scripture is God-breathed. The rest is commentary.

On the canon: yes, the Church recognized it. No, it didn’t create it. The Spirit doesn’t need a council to authenticate His Word. He didn’t outsource that to bishops with golden staffs and incense allergies. If He needed man’s stamp of approval to finalize His revelation, we’ve traded inspiration for committee consensus.

Your appeal to “living tradition” assumes continuity. But the problem isn’t age. The problem is addition. Apostolic succession doesn’t sanctify error. Paul warns the Galatians about turning aside to a “different gospel,” and he wasn’t writing to heretics with wild imaginations. He was writing to a church that had started blending faith with religious tradition.

You ask how I can affirm communion as participation and not fall into Nestorianism. Easy. Because the Church isn’t Christ. The Church is His bride, not His being. The body metaphor is relational, not ontological. Christ nourishes His Church. He doesn’t dissolve into it. That’s the difference between a covenant and a confusion.

And about images. The bronze serpent wasn’t an icon. It was a one-time divine command pointing to Christ, not a license to start painting saints on wood and bowing to them. Hezekiah smashed it when people started treating it like a relic. That’s not just an Old Testament anecdote. That’s a prophetic warning.

You’re also trying to baptize creeds and councils as essential by accusing my position of historical amnesia. But the Nicene Creed has weight because it reflects Scripture, not because it adds something. And if it ever doesn’t, toss it. No creed trumps canon. No council outranks the cross.

Finally, theosis. You call it “union not absorption,” but the New Testament calls it sanctification, not divinization. The moment you shift from “be conformed to the image of His Son” to “participate in the divine nature” through liturgy, you’re not climbing into holiness. You’re climbing back into Babel.

@Samuel_23, your questions are sharp. But I’ve got one for you.

If Scripture is not enough, if it needs tradition, bishops, icons, incense, liturgies, creeds, synods, and centuries of scaffolding, then why does Paul say the man of God is already “complete, equipped for every good work”?

That’s either true or it’s not.

Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.

1 Like
115

I’ll think about it brother…hard question, I need to ask someone

116

this has been awesome in pulling out many different pieces of history, etc. its a lot for me to try to put together. im mildly interested, but not enough to get in deep right now. but just want to say that i love once again seeing how this community operates. you guys are awesome, i see lots of love in spite of differing opinions, and once again i feel ive finally found an online christian place that hugs literally everyone involved.

1 Like
117

@Bruce_Leiter Sir
I will certainly be praying that God grants you wisdom and strength in the decisions ahead, that the right medical interventions, including surgery, if needed, come at the right time, and that He restores your rest and renews your strength day by day.

118

You said Orthodoxy makes scripture “dependent on unwritten tradition” is good, but see, its overlooks the patrisitc understanding of Scripture as materially sufficent, yet formally enactd within the Church’s trinitarian economy. Scripture’s profitability (2 Tim 3:16-17) is complemented by apostolic paradosis (2 Thess 2:15), not as dependency but as the Spirit’s perichoresis, between written word and lived mystery, reflecting the Logos’ incarnation (John 1:14, where divine truth assumes human form). This is but the divine-human synergy of Phil 2:12-13, where God works in us to will and act.
If Scripture is profitable for every good work, how do you envision those works outside the Church’s communal life (Acts 2:42), and might rejecting this balance lead to a view where the Word’s incarnational reality is abstracted, then will it lead other groups of people to assume a docetic-like separation of divine inspiration from human embodiment?
See, I love this point. I think this point is the most important matter of this discussion:

Yes, I see it, this shows the importance of personal faith, but it intensifies the individualist tendency by detaching it from the ecclesial context Paul provides for Timothy’s guardianship of the deposit ( 1 Tim 6:20, 2 Tim 1:14). The command to guard what was entrusted encompasses the gospel in its full apostolic dimension, the apostles handed down truth through succession, ensuring the Spirit’s guidance (John 16:13) within the Church, not as isolated revelation. Motanism’s error was precisely this privatisation, condemned for bypassing the bishops who embody unity (St. Igantius, taught by St. Polycarp, who was indeed taught by St. John the Apostle, and thus what he says comes from what St. John taught St. Polycarp, St. Ignatius writes, “Follow the bishop as Christ follows the Father”).
If Paul’s entrustment is only the actual gospel without post-apostolic liturgies, how do you reconcile your affirmation of commanded acts like baptism, which the apostles practised with ritual form (Acts 2:38, immersion implying triple invocation of the Trinity, as per St. Basil’s tradition) without sliding into deeper individualism that dismisses even the communal preaching Paul mandates (Rom 10:14-15)
Jude’s quotation of 1 Enoch is not a blank check for extra-biblical tradition, but you missed the point I wanted to make, brother, Jude’s authritative use of these sources for doctrinal purposes (Jude 9’s angelic dispute from Assumption of Moses, Jude 14-15’s prophecy from 1 Enoch), which parallels the apstoles’ integration of oral paradosis into the gospel’s proclamation (1 Cor 11:23, received from the Lord what I also delivered to you"). Paul’s citation of pagan poets (Acts 17:28, Aratus’ Phaenomena) is rhetorical evangelism, not doctrinal, whereas Jude’s is prophetic, illustrating how Scripture breathes through the Chruch’s living memory, as St. Papias of Hierapolis, disciple of St. John the Apostle, collected oral tradition to complement the written word.
If the rest is commentary, how do you distinguish apostolic customs like Eucharist’s form (Luke 22:19, Bread and wine as symbols of real presence, per 1 Cor 10:16), and might this leada to a view that rejects all non-explicit practices, even the Trinitarian baptismal formula as mere commentary.
About canon, what is stopping me from reading reading Infacny gosepl of James, Infacy Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Mary, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas and what is stopping me from rejecting Hebrews (written by an unknown person), James (conflict with Paul), 2 Peter (style diff from 1 Peter, could have been written by someone else), 2 John, 3 John (Authorship questioned), Jude (quotes from non-canonical), Revelation (Symbolic contents only). If I was living in 300AD, how do I decide what to read and what not, because for me, I would presume, all of these from the Infant Gospel of Thomas to the Apocalypse of Peter were inspired by the Holy Spirit, seeing it, I would accept it. Why accept Revelation when you can accept the Apocalypse of Peter? (Note, you cannot use patristic sources, nor the Councils, nor the early Church). How would you guide me if you were with me at 200-300AD?
I’m not accusing anyone, I’m raising a critique. Church is Christ’s bride, not His being with a relational, not ontological body metaphor is inteded to preserve distinction, but it extends the Nestorian tendency by detaching the divine perichoresis from the ekklesia’s reality (Eph 5:29-30. Church’s hypostatic participation in Christ’s natures (John 17:21, “one as We are one”), where the divine nourishes the human without confusion. The Church is the icon of the Trinity, uniting the persons in divine energy.
If Christ doesn’t dissolve into it, how do you explain 1 Cor 10:16’s koinonia (participation) of the blood? Might this relational view lead to deeper Donatist separation, where the visible Church becomes dispensable, contradicting Paul’s episcopal appointment (Titus 1:5)?
See brother, you again missed the point I wanted to make, the bronze serpent was a one time command, not a liscense for icons, as you said, but this overlooks its typological fulfillment in Christ (John 3:14), where veneration honors the archetype, per St John of Damascus. The serpent’s destruction was for abuse, not proper use, paralleling how Scripture warns against idolatry while affirming material symbols (Exo 25:18, cherubim on the ark).
If not commanded voids icons, how do you affirm non-commanded hymns (Eph 5:19) and might this risk deeper iconoclastic heresy, why not deny the Incarnation’s sanctification of matter (John 1:14, the Logos assuming flesh to redeem creation)?

119

I did exclude the history of perscution.

The church is an invisible collection of believers, many meeting together, others isolated by geography or fear of perscution, or ignorance.

Through out the bible God has worked with a visible disobedient organisation of the kingdom of Israel/Judah, but has also maintain an often invisible remant who have been faithfull to God.

Just as that occurred in the OT so it occurs through the history of Christianity. A faithful believing remdant have lived and preached the gospel, despite the efforts of a corupt church.

We see it in Catholic and orthodox history, we see it in protestant church history.

It is not the oeganisation but thepeople who form the Church of God.

120

You’re right, the faithful remnant shines through in every tradition despite human failings.

Yes I got it, my bad.

In the prev post you said:

Sorry about that

121

Scripture never says that God’s Word is filtered through “unwritten tradition” or some mystical “perichoresis” between text and ritual. That’s man’s language, not God’s. The Word says, ‘All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable… that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly furnished unto all good works’ (2 Timothy 3:16–17). Complete, not partial, not half-equipped, but fully supplied.

When Paul tells the Thessalonians to “Stand fast, and hold the traditions” (2 Thessalonians 2: 15), he is pointing to what the apostles had already taught, the same doctrine written down under inspiration, not to centuries of unwritten practices layered on top. There is no verse that commands “apostolic succession” as a safeguard. Instead Paul says, “Hold fast the form of sound words… that good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost” (2 Timothy 1:13–14). The Spirit guards the deposit, not a chain of bishops.

And this is exactly what Jesus rebuked in the Pharisees: “Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?… In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:3, 9). They piled on extras, and by doing so, “made the word of God of none effect” (Mark 7:13). Adding to Scripture is not devotion, it is disobedience.

You won’t find Scripture commanding triple immersion, chrismation, or any ritual forms added later. What does it command? “Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). Nothing more. Nothing less.

Quoting non-canonical texts doesn’t make them inspired. Jude’s use of outside material no more validates them for doctrine than Paul quoting pagan poets does (Acts 17:28). God’s warning stands: “Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar” (Proverbs 30:6). Paul repeats it: “Do not go beyond what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6).

The Church is never called “an icon of the Trinity” or told to “participate hypostatically” in Christ’s natures. Scripture calls her His body (1 Corinthians 12:27) and His bride (Ephesians 5:25–32). Relational. Real. Not philosophical mysticism.

Nor does the New Testament ever command the making or bowing to images. The second commandment still says, “You shall not make for yourself a carved image… you shall not bow down to them or serve them” (Exodus 20:4–5). God’s one-time commands for cherubim on the ark or the bronze serpent don’t overturn His law. When people later burned incense to the serpent, Hezekiah smashed it as idolatry (2 Kings 18:4).

Here’s the sharp contrast: the Pharisees added tradition and nullified God’s Word. The same danger exists today. But Scripture stands finished. Jesus said, “It is finished” (John 19:30). The Word is sufficient. The gospel is complete. To add is to corrupt. To stand on Scripture is to stand secure.

122

@SincereSeeker, to your question:

Paul’s “complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16–17) refers to Scripture’s role in the Church’s theotic life, as Timothy’s context, a bishopric (1 Timothy 3:1), sacramental acts (1 Corinthians 11:23–26), and succession (2 Timothy 2:2) shows “good work” encompasses the ekklesia’s worship (Ephesians 4:12, “equipping the saints for ministry”). Scripture is complete as the divine breath animating the Body (1 Corinthians 12:27), not isolated from it; the apostles’ practice (Acts 2:42–47) reveals this synergy.
How do you envision “every good work” without the Church’s structure, and might this abstraction lead to a view where the Word’s incarnational reality is diminished?
Refugium In Altissimis

123

Thanks, @bdavidc , for your eloquent and detailed response. I can definitely see the “SincereSeeker style” in the way you present your points—very powerful and precise.

I actually addressed much of this about 26 posts ago, so I don’t want to rehash everything. What would be really helpful, though, is if you could share the sources you’ve been using to learn about Orthodox theology. Your posts clearly show a nuanced understanding of Orthodox and Catholic teaching, and I’d love to study the primary materials myself. Books, websites, or any references would be much appreciated—I’ll take the time to go through them.

125

Brother @Samuel_23,

Ah yes, the classic pivot: take “complete” and hand it back to the Church as if Paul meant “complete when paired with tradition, liturgy, apostolic succession, and sacramental context.” But let’s hit this straight.

When Paul says “All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable… so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work,” he doesn’t qualify that with “assuming you’ve got miters, bishops, chrism, and a thurible handy.” The verse doesn’t say Scripture equips the Church. It says it equips the man of God. Not the magisterium. Not the synod. Not a robed hierarchy. The individual servant of God who leans on the Word.

Yes, Timothy was part of a community. But Paul roots his equipping not in tradition but in Scripture. He doesn’t say, “Hold fast to the icons, incense, and holy mysteries I handed down.” He says, “Continue in what you have learned… the sacred writings” (2 Tim 3:14–15). It’s not synergy. It’s sufficiency.

You bring up 1 Corinthians 12 and Acts 2 as if the Church’s existence somehow redefines the role of the Word. But let’s be clear. The Church was birthed by the Spirit through the Word, not the other way around. The apostles didn’t walk around saying, “Join the Church so we can give you grace.” They preached Christ crucified, and the Spirit added daily to the number being saved. The Church gathered around the gospel. The gospel didn’t trickle down from a candlelit sanctuary.

Now, as for your question. How do I envision “every good work” without the Church’s structure?

Simple. The structure isn’t the source. The Word is. The Church is the fruit of the Word, not the tree. The apostles didn’t invent grace-dispensing institutions. They proclaimed the risen Christ, and faith came by hearing. Good works followed because lives were transformed by truth, not because someone in a vestment performed a rite.

The incarnational reality of the Word isn’t diminished when you trust Scripture alone. It is exalted. Because the same Word that became flesh now speaks through the written Word to resurrect dead hearts, convict sin, and equip saints. That’s not abstraction. That’s power.

So let’s not pretend that Scripture breathes through tradition like a pipe organ through incense. It breathes by the Spirit of God directly, effectively, and with no middleman.

Refugium in Christo. Not in ecclesial fog.

Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.