jblake

Pre-Reformation: Hussites probably would have done so, had they not gotten bogged down in fighting the crusaders. Something that few people appreciate, is how much control the Catholic church had over people in Europe, between the fall of Rome, and the Reformation. For all practical purposes, to defy the church was to defy the state, with either execution for sedition, or excommunication by Rome, as the immediate result. (Luther was lucky, in that the German Princes were being bankrupted by a Pope that was very obviously violating the fundamental tenants of Catholic Christianity.) Very few people will argue against the status quo, when doing so will result in them being killed. Post Reformation: The Restoration Movement in general. Albeit not a denomination, _Church of Christ (Non-institutional)_ would meet your criteria. _Church of Christ (A Capella)_ and _Church of Christ (Instrumental)_ would probably also meet your criteria. (I'll grant that they are not denominations.) Arguably, Landmark Baptist Church also meets those criteria. The Mainline Protestant denominations are: * Episcopalian --- more specifically ECUSA; * Presbyterian --- more specifically PCUSA; * Methodist --- more specifically UMC; * Lutheran --- more specifically ELCA; The Seven Sisters of American Protestantism are: * American Baptist Churches (USA) - ABCUSA; * Church of Christ (Disciples of Christ) - DoC; * United Church of Christ - UCC; * United Methodist Church - UMC; * Presbyterian Church (USA) - PCUSA; * Evangelical Lutheran Church in America - ECLA; * Episcopal Church of the United States of America - ECUSA; The concept that there was a Total Apostasy would be an anathema to most (?all) of them. The greater congregational autonomy is, the more likely the congregation is to state that there was Total Apostasy, and give criteria defining when it occured. In those congregations that teach that there was a Total Apostasy, their explanation is that there always was a group of people that either worshipped separately from Catholic Christianity, or tried to correct Catholic Christianity from within Catholicism. In both instances, "The gates of Hell swung forth from the Catholic Church, with Satan riding forth, to destroy those who proclaimed the Good News." The doctrines, beliefs, and practices that led up to the church being in apostasy took centuries to develop. Even so, there were those who tried to correct things, being killed by the Church, for their labours, as a way of thanks. Catholic Christianity, Orthodox Christianity, and Oriental Christianity have specific rules governing whether or not a specific council is both ecumenical, and authoritative. As such, there is no logical reason to require Protestant Christianity to accept any council that claims to be both ecumenical, and authoritative. The primary significance of Nicaea is the creed attributed to it. More precisely, the second version of that creed. For all practical purposes, one has to reject all creeds, to be logically consistent in rejecting all ecumenical councils. Historically, Christianity has been a creedal religion: This is what I believe, blah, blah, blah. Anybody who doesn't believe what I believe is not a Christian. (One can have the "anybody who does not believe what I believe is not a Christian, without creeds. However, that position tends to be more difficult to justify.)(Historically, Creeds have served as tools to divide, and destroy, rather than their claimed unify and consolidate.) The secondary significance of Nicaea, and the rest of the ecumenical councils, is that they provide support for rejecting theological positions that are currently unpopular, but for which there is some scriptural support. (The usual response is along the lines of: "The church has always rejected that position. See this verse in the Bible, and how it was reinforced by this Council, and this Early Church Father, etc, etc, etc. Meanwhile, when one sits down and examines the evidence, the position was not always the one held by the Early Church Fathers. Taking your example of Trinitarianism, the majority of the Pre-Nicene Fathers were Modalists, not Trinitarians. (Even at Nicaea, Modalists outnumbered Trinitarians by roughly 3 to 2. Adherents of the big "heresy" that Niceae tackled, were almost equal in numbers to Modalists and Trinitarians combined.It was only after the third ecumenical council, that Trinitarianism emerged triumphant, with no opposition until the beginning of the Pentacostal Movement.) By rejecting Tradition in tota, one swims in a sea that is, at best, utterly alien. Tradition is a very hard thing to reject. Reformed Christianity recognizes them, but downplays their significance. The Protestant movements that grew out of the Anabaptists do not accept those councils. Baptists, and related movements don't accept those councils. _Church of Christ (Disciples of Christ)_, and _United Church of Christ_ are probably the only groups to emerge from the Restoration Movement, that accept those Councils. (They also explored, and embraced "in non-essential, liberty" aspect of the Restoration Movement, more than the other Restoration Movement groups did.) With roughly 1400 years of Christianity proclaiming a Trinity, and rejecting everything else as heretical, it is an idea that has become ingrained with Christianity. The usual alternative is Unitarianism, which, whilst having some scriptural support, is also contradicted by some passages. The other suspect is monophysite, which is merely a refinement of Trinitarianism, albeit one that is harder to grok. Modalism was virtually ignored until the beginning of the Pentacostal Movement. This history serves to construct a bias favouring Trinitarianism, and excluding all else. It is very hard to conceive of C, when all one has heard of is "A", and "Not-A". a) Orthodox Christianity has Canon Law that defines the requirements for a Church Council to be binding upon all. (Case in Point: The Synod of Jerusalem is not usually considered to be a binding Church Council within Orthodox Christianity, because of certain technicalities that were not met. However, that Council served to define, and refute Protestant Christianity with its attacks on Orthodox Christianity. b) Other than who called them, what was the difference between the Council of Rome, and the Council of Niceae, that made the latter authoritative, but not the former? That difference explains why both Catholic and Orthodox Christianity reject the Council of Rome, even though it dealt with issues that are greater than anything that has been discussed at any council since then. It is a response to "At what point is something an essential, rather than a non-essential?" Is using a musical instrument in Church a mortal sin? Yes, according to _Church of Christ (A Capella), whilst Mars Hill Church would respond with "say what?" proceeding to carry out their contemporary worship service with electric guitars, drums, synthesizers, and other instruments more commonly associated with Death metal and FuturePop, than the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. The example might seem silly, but _Church of Christ (A Capella)_ is just one example of a group of people saying, "This is an essential", in the face of people wondering why, and how it could be anything but a non-essential. Repeat this across ten thousand points of doctrine, and you'll have ten thousand different groups, drawing a line saying "this is an essential". An extreme example of "essentials" is two groups who doctrines, theology, and practices are identical, except on one point: Group A baptizes in a river. Group B baptizes in a baptismal font in their church building. Group A condemns Group B for going against the teachings of the Bible, citing John the Baptist and The Ethiopian Eunuch, as evidence from the Bible, and the Didache as evidence of what the Early Christian Church did. Group B points out that river isn't running water year round, and furthermore, by having the baptismal font in the church, the person can be immediately baptized. However, if you want to baptize in the river, that is fine by us. (I'm trying to imagine somebody getting baptized in the Jordan River in mid-January. Or even in mid-July.(How can it get so polluted so close to its starting point.)) One of the slogans of the Restoration Movement was "in essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty". The crucial issue is what differentiates an essential, from a non-essential. Trying to define each and every thing as "essential", when all one has to go on, is Tradition, is an exercise in futility. (Orthodox Christianity has always recognized that. Catholic Christianity only recognized that, after being ripped apart during the Reformation.) True. The flip side is that the Bible doesn't lay out a precise, specific set of beliefs and practices, that are utterly unambigious. Is one's interpretation and understanding of the doctrine and practice correct? Oriental, Orthodox, and Catholic Christianity have a hierarchy that states: "This is what Tradition teaches. This is what Tradition practices." The closest that Protestant Christianity comes, is in the magisterial branch. Even then, it is up to the individual to accept, or reject the doctrine, teaching, or practice. Instead of getting tangled up in a fruitless quest, it is a tacit agreement to disagree, but ignore those differences for the task at hand. That can be understood in at least four different ways. This ignores the differences between acceptance of private revelation on a personal level, and acceptance of private revelation on a corporate level. It also ignores the differences in understanding This gets awkward. Depending upon how the Biblical Canon is defined, and specific pericopes within it are understood, the Bible is both self-defined, and claims authority greater than that of Tradition. (The hard part is determining which books are being referred to, since they are not listed by name, but by subject matter. In one of the Gospels, Jesus implicitly endorses the TaNaKh. In one of the Pauline Epistles, there is an implicit endorsement of Maccabees.) In the Catholic Epistles, the Pauline Epistles are endorsed as "Scripture". What they all lack, is a specific list of books. That has two sources: *The Priesthood of Aaron; *The requirements of the Roman Empire, after making Christianity the official State Religion; Conflate the two, either by design or accident, and the theology develops, even though there are passages in the NT that contradict it. Depending upon how, and which books one selects for one's canon, this can be either implicitly, or explicitly demonstrated. "Protestant Christianity" is a label of convenience, applied to a number of usually similar theological positions. The acceptance/rejection of the individual points of TULIP and the Remonstrances make a much clearer differentiation between the theological positions of the various groups ascribed to Protestant Christianity, than redefining each of the Five Solas for each of the different theological positions within Christianity. That is why the theology of the specific organization has to be examined against both TULIP and the Remonstrances. The Restoration Movement is probably the most significant branch that rejects both.The primary reason it gets dumped into "Protestant Christianity", is that it emphatically rejects both Catholic and Orthodox Theology. Few realize that it also rejects TULIP, The Remonstrances, and the Five Solas. TULIP: * Total Depravity; * Unconditional Election; * Limited Atonement; * Irresistible Grace; * Perseverance of the Saints Remonstrances: * Total Depravity; * Election is conditional upon faith in Christ; * Unlimited Atonement; * Free will to resist God's grace; * Preservation of the saints is conditional upon the believer remaining in Christ; Counter-Remonstrances: * Predestination is conditional; * Atonement is in intention universal; * Man cannot exercise saving faith; * The grace of God is resistible; * Believers can fall from grace; Five Solas: * Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone"); * Sola fide ("by faith alone"); * Sola gratia ("by grace alone"); * Solus Christus ("Christ alone"); * Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone"); jonathon

Denominations' date=' and even non-denominations, such as the church of Christ, have a set of principles which they apply to biblical exegesis. As a general rule of thumb, the resulting doctrines are both mutually congruent, and have scriptural support for them. (This is equally true for seeker friendly mega-churches, as it is for rural snake handling Primitive Baptists. The difference is that the latter are far more vocal, and attempt to correct what they considered to be a sin, than the former.) Individuals, OTOH, tend to partake of "cafeteria Christianity", picking only what sounds good to them, without investigating the scriptural basis of the doctrine. Things aren't helped when people don't bother to read the Bible for themselves, relying only on whatever the preacher says in the sermon, or what they pick up on the radio, or TV. Even worse are those that explicitly reject what is in the Bible, for the simple reason that it disagrees with Post-Modern Thought. Adding and abetting that "cafeteria Christianity" culture is fifteen odd centuries of Catholic Christianity adopting, and incorporating Pagan theology, rituals, and practices, into its theology, dogma, rites, and practices. (As one example, Rogation Sunday, and its kith and kin started out as Pagan days of rest from uninhibited frolicking.) I don't think anybody can claim that the Waldensians did not carry out their rejection of Catholic theology to its logical conclusion. Likewise the Anabaptists carried out their rejection of Catholic theology, to the logical conclusion of their belief system. John Hus rejected Tradition, unless it was derived from Scripture. He didn't live to see the Catholic Church admit that it was practicing that which was heretical according to Catholic Dogma. What people forget is that Luther accepted both Scripture, and Tradition, provided the latter was in conformance to the former. Over time, Luther dug deeper into Catholic doctrine and practices, and found more and more of them lacking any basis in Scripture. Had the Pope addressed the specific issues of the 95 Theses, when it was nailed to the door, the odds are against the creation of Lutheran Christianity. (Probably the key difference between contemporary Lutherans, and contemporary Catholics is the acceptance/rejection of Vatican II and Vatican I.) Reformed Christianity is based on TULIP. To the extent that Catholic Christianity rejects TULIP, Reformed Christianity rejects Catholic Christianity. The Anglican Communion was as much a statement of political autonomy, as it was a throw back to Celtic Christianity. Theologically, it steers a course between that of Orthodox Christianity, Catholic Christianity, and Reformed Christianity. By the time The Restoration Movement rolled around, things had quietened down enough to examine all aspects of Christian doctrine and practice. One consequence was throwing out everything since John wrote the Apocalypse. One ironical consequence is that once one throws out the teachings inflicted upon Catholic Theology by the Magisterium, there are virtually no theological differences between the two. For the Roman Catholic Church to change everything that the reformers requested, would require two major shifts in theology. a)The rejection _in tota_ of Vatican II and Vatican I. Most of the Fifth Lateran Council, and Council of Trent would also have to be rejected; b) The rejection of the authority of the Magisterium, and the nullification of _all_ doctrine imposed by that body upon Catholic Christianity. Those that use the term "the Body of Christ" have a pretty specific definition of what it means. Whilst the various definitions are not one hundred percent compatible, there are areas of congruence. Whilst Luther didn't analyze it as deeply as he analyzed simony, he did conclude that it was valid Doctrine. Calvin likewise concluded that the Trinity was sound Biblical doctrine. You have to either go back the Council of Chalcedon (451), or fast forward to the mid-eighteenth century to find a branch of Christianity that did not support Trinitarianism. I'm not sure what other doctrines you are referring to, but the validity of Trinitarianism has been repeatedly questioned. It might surprise you, but Pentacostal Christianity is split along the issue of Trinitarianism. Most of what falls under the umbrella of Protestant Christianity has found the Scriptural evidence in support of Trinitarianism conclusive, and the alternate theories lacking both substance, and foundation. One critical difference: The majority of the leaders of both the Reformation, and Restoration Movement were willing to accept that what they taught was false, if one could demonstrate that it was false using either the sixty-six book, seventy three book, or seventy-six book Canon. Those same leaders, applying the same criteria to the Book of Mormon, a they applied to which ever Canon they utilize, find that it (Book of Mormon) fails on a number of critical (to them) points, and as such lacks divine inspiration. "Protestant" is an all embracing term, that describes a number of different groups with incongruent theologies. * Lutheran: Medieval Catholic Doctrine and Dogma stripped of heretical teachings by the Magisterium. ("Heretical" as defined by Catholic Ecclesiastical Law --- something which the Roman Catholic Church has more or less admitted to, for most of Luther's points.) * Reformed Christianity/Calvinism, which advocates TULIP, or variants thereof; * Reformed Christianity/Arminianism, which advocates Remonstrance, or variants thereof; * The Anglican Communion: Medieval Catholic Doctrine and Dogma overlaid by both Celtic Christianity and Reformed Christianity; The above groups tend to accept the first Seven Ecumenical Councils. * Anabaptists, Waldenese, and related groups; * Baptist Theology; * The Restoration Movement; * Pentacostal Christianity; Those four groups tend to reject all Ecumenical Councils. There are exceptions in both lists. For example, _Church of Christ (Disciples of Christ)_ is an example of a Restoration Movement Church that accepts the first Seven Ecumenical Councils. Numerically, the first group might be larger. However, the second group is gaining members, whilst the first group is losing members. (Most individual church growth in the United States is the result of "church shopping". ) The Council of Rome (Circa 145) called by Marcion isn't recognized by any current branches of Christianity. (The only branch that accepted it, was Gnostic Christianity, and one can logically argue that they didn't accept it.) The next three church councils [ First Council of Nicaea (325), First Council of Constantinople (381), Council of Ephesus (431)] were accepted by Orthodox, Oriental, and Catholic Christianity. The next church council [second Council of Ephesus (449)] has since been rejected by Orthodox, Catholic, and some branches of Oriental Christianity. I guess I should also specify that all parts of Protestant Christianity reject this one. The fourth church Council [Council of Chalcedon (451) ] are accepted by Orthodox, Catholic, and some branches of Oriental Christianity. The next two church councils [second Council of Constantinople (553), Third Council of Constantinople (680-681) ] are accepted by Orthodox and Catholic Christianity. The next council [Quinisext Council (692) ] is only accepted by Orthodox Christianity. The next council [Council of Hieria (754)] is ignored by everybody. The next council [second Council of Nicaea (787)] is accepted by Catholic Christianity. The next council [Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870) ] is accepted by Catholic Christianity. The next council [Fourth Council of Constantinople (879-880)] is accepted by Orthodox Christianity. The next six councils [First Council of the Lateran (1123), Second Council of the Lateran (1139), Third Council of the Lateran (1179), Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), First Council of Lyon (1245), Second Council of Lyon (1274), Council of Vienne (1311-1312) ] are recognized only by Catholic Christianity. The next council [Fifth Council of Constantinople (1341-1351)] is granted some status in Orthodox Christianity, but is not universally recognized as Ecumenical council. The next council [Council of Pisa (1409)is not accepted by anybody. (Talks broke down.) The next council [Council of Constance (1414-1418)] is ostensibly accepted by both Catholic and Orthodox Christianity. However, neither group implemented its resolutions. The next council [ Council of Siena (1423-1424) ] is not accepted by anybody. The next council [Council of Basel, Ferrara and Florence (1431-1445)] is "sort of recognized" by both Orthodox and Catholic Christianity. Again, we have a failure to implement the resolutions it passed. The next two councils [Fifth Council of the Lateran (1512-1514), Council of Trent (1545-1563)] are recognized only by Catholic Christianity. The next council [synod of Jerusalem (1672)] is granted some status in Orthodox Christianity, but is not universally recognized as an Ecumenical council. The next council [ First Vatican Council (1870)] is accepted by Catholic Christianity. The next council [second Vatican Council (1962-1965)] is accepted by most, but not all of Catholic Christianity. I think I'm missing at least one Western Church Council. I'm missing all of the Asian Church Councils. As you can see, no branch of Christianity accepts all of the Western Ecumenical Church Councils. Reasons for accepting/rejecting a specific council tend to be theologically dependent. For example, Gnostic Christianity didn't abide by the decision of the Council of Rome called by Marcion, and as such, can arguebly be said to have rejected that council, even though it was called by one of their own. If the council considers the reasoned, scripturally based doctrine to be heretical, the adherents of that doctrine tend to reject that council --- even if fifteen plus centuries later the descendants of the other participants of that council say "oops, we misunderstood your theology. You aren't a heretic." This depends upon the specific Christian theology that the individual/organization has. Historically, the Church Councils accepted by Orthodox Christianity have been called by the _secular_ political leader of the region in which the council is held. Arguebly, this also applies to those accepted by Catholic Christianity, on the basis that the Pope is a secular political leader. (Orthodox Christianity considers that to be an abuse of papal power, and as such, an unacceptable grasping of illegitimate power and authority.) The only example of a Church Council in the Bible, shows that it was called by those parties who disagreed with a specific aspect of theology. It has been argued that it is a bad example, because it did not produce any binding resolutions. Furthermore, any resolutions it did pass, were honoured in the breach thereof, by Paul. This also depends upon the specific theology of the specific organization/person. In as much as no branch of Christianity accepts all of the Ecumenical Councils, this, and the rest of your questions are theologically meaningless. Consider that the Catholic Church abrogated to itself that which it had neither the authority, nor the right to claim unto itself. Furthermore, consider that it deliberately adopted a heretical position, and failed to request repentance for the heresies that it advocated, even when presented with evidence of those heresies. jonathon

Which version? The first version prefers Modalism, but also supports Trinitarianism. The second version advocates Trinitarianism, with an implicit tolerance of Modalism. Orthodox Christianity endorses the first version, and rejects the second version. (Contemporary Orthodox Christianity also rejects Modalism, but that is a slightly different issue.) Catholic Christianity endorses the second version, whilst mildly accepting the first version. (The Filoque is one of the major reasons why the Catholic Christianity broke away from Orthodox Christianity.) jonathon