Why I’m a Restorationist

The world of Christianity is filled to the brim with many denominations.

The early years of the Faith since the 1st-3rd centuries A.D, had mostly, a unified belief and followed the simple pattern of the Christian tradition as seen in the New Testament, if not with some other small traditions, organisational, and theological developments along the way – though there were always some dissenters causing trouble and voicing their own views against the Apostolic writings and traditions, such as the Judaizers, Ebonites, and Gnostics, who for the most part were largely cast off by the early Christian Apostles and apologists for their rejection of the commands and traditions as contained in the four Gospels and Epistles (what we call the New Testament Bible today).

The oldest form of Christianity still alive today which has consistently existed in unbroken existence since ancient times, is Ecumenical Christianity as defined by the “Seven Ecumenical Councils”, which got its start in the 4th century at the council of Nicaea, consisting of the Catholics, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and alike. The latter of the classical Ecumenical sects; the Orthodox Churches, rejecting many of the later councils and claimed headship of Papal Rome.

Then there are the early Protestants and Reformers of the 14th century, consisting of Churches like the Lutherans, Calvinists and Anglicans who believe scripture alone is the sole source of Christian doctrine, yet still hold to some of non-biblical Catholic and Orthodox traditions and sacraments.

And then later Protestant movements like the Presbyterians, followed by the Methods, Baptists, Evangelicals, Congregationalists and alike, who all further distanced themselves from such non-biblical traditions. And then also other groups who took things even further than they, like the Dissenters, Anabaptists, Restorationists, Adventists, and Postdenominationalists, who often reject a great many if not all of the Ecumenical Church councils, doctrines, and their many traditions.

All Christians have their reasons for being in one denomination or sect of Christianity or another. Be it being born into a certain tradition, or, converting from one to another.

So, why do I choose the path of faith that I do?

I am an individual who places great value in authenticity, things that are natural, organic, as they were meant to be. And when it comes to my faith as a Christian, it is no different. The scriptures make it clear we should not alter or defy God’s commands, and likewise they say, we should obey God’s Son, Yeshua, and he in turn said to obey the Apostles to whom he said he’d request the Father to send the holy spirit to guide them to all truth.

So that means I want to, in all my power, obey those things to the letter. For that reason I am invested in the seeking of “original Christianity”, the oldest, most original, unadulterated form, as it existed in the 1st century, and not through modernist or later dogmatic or traditional eyes, no matter how old those traditions claim to be. And that means taking a dive into scripture as the primary source and the history itself surrounding it, taking into account the culture, the people, the language, and the many earliest Christians who came after, who also wrote many writings down on their understanding of the Christian faith and tradition, and working not in anachronistic order, but chronological order.

That is the essence of Restorationism.

Whilst the term “Restorationist” is a recent one in the history of Christianity, and is easily labelled as a “modernist movement” or type of “reformist” mindset that would appear to be “rebellious” or “anti-traditional”… At its heart and soul, it is to be ancient. It is to seek to be ‘more traditional’ than “traditional”, ‘more orthodox’ than “Orthodoxy”, and more in line with the first “universal” (or “catholic”) Christian Faith than “Catholicism”, and it is also paradoxically to be ‘more Protestant’ than “Protestantism” in respect to their protest of anti-biblical practices.

There is a famous Catholic saying:

“To be deep into history, is to cease to be Protestant” – John Henry Newman, Cardinal of the Catholic Church

And indeed, I quite agree in many respects. I believe many, though not all Protestant doctrines are inventions from the 1500s A.D. Of course, what Mr. Newman meant by this was, “to be deep into history is to become a Catholic”, describing his own conversion from Anglicanism to Catholicism.

He does of course have a genuine point. As I have aforementioned, the oldest living tradition of Christianity today, as an institution and congregation, is Ecumenical Christianity, and that involves the Catholic Church, if not ‘primarily’ the Catholic Church as far as their ancient traditions go – though others like the Eastern Orthodox would disagree, more on that facet later.

As I covered in my article on the “one true church“, the Catholics and Orthodox both can claim a living lineage of ordinations of Elders tracing back to the early Christians of the 2nd century, and possibly even prior. So if I am to be deep into history and authentic ancient Christianity, why then am I not Catholic, or Orthodox?

My answer is quite simple, I believe the Ecumenical Churches are in a state of apostasy. When I read the scriptures and traditions of the Apostles, and even several early Patristic writers, all I see time and time again, is clear contradiction with what I read; and I’m not just talking about the Trinity doctrine either, but several things.

But one might ask “what innate authority or qualification do you have to make such a bold statement in the face of over 1600 years of tradition?”. And it’s a valid question. My answer though is merely, ‘common sense’ of the mind that my God has given me to evaluate what current Church leaders teach and what was taught by the earliest Church leaders.

I have been told by Catholics I’ve spoken with, that I do not have the ‘right’ to disagree with their Papal doctrines, and that I cannot “rely on my own mind” to understand scripture as I read it, for “without the divine interpretation of the Church and Holy See, I will not be able to understand or grasp what is written”. That I must rely on their councils and most of all, the Pope, who is “unable to speak any false doctrine when he speaks from the Chair of Peter”.

This of course, is merely a method, I believe, to gaslight individuals into blindly accepting dogmas and traditions without question, making them doubt their own capability of reason and ability to read simple words printed on a page.

And I have not only personal reasons to believe so, but many others would agree with me.

For instance as early as the 2nd Century, the Christian Elders and apologists, such as Irenaeus, opposed such a line of thinking of which originated with the Gnostics:

“When, however, they [the Gnostics] are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn around and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but ‘vivâ voce’ (word of mouth)…” – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 2

And even the other Churches of the ancient Ecumenical tradition are in agreement, namely the Orthodox Churches; of whom are just as old as the Catholic Church itself, once being one with it, and holding to the many same ancient traditions and lineages of Apostolic ordinations of Elders.

It is argued by the Eastern Orthodox theologians I have encountered, that the notion of Rome’s Primacy and the sole rule and infallibility of the Pope is “heresy of all heresies”, and the height of hubris.

From a historical council perspective of events, the Orthodox argue that Rome’s claim to Primacy and all interpretational authority, and that of the Pope’s contradicts the earliest councils that were put in place to keep the Pope of Rome in check.

Both the Second Councils of Carthage and Iconium, which opposed Stephen the Overseer (Bishop) of Rome for both his doctrines, and for trying to justify them by claiming to be the inheritor of Peter’s authority. And also the set in stone “inspired” dogma of the Fifth Ecumenical Council that was canonised in reaction to Pope Vigilus at the time, to prevent him (and any future popes) overruling all the other Overseers of the council of the churches from all over the world who disagreed with his asserting of new doctrines in a document known as “The Three Chapters”:

“Our colleague Stephen [Bishop of Rome], who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter, to whom the gates of the heavenly kingdom were committed by the Lord, does not hold the succession from Peter, but from the concordant harmony of the episcopate and the people, in which unity is shown, and from the agreement of the bishops, and the bond of the priesthood. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another“. – Cyprian, Epistle 66 & Second Council of Carthage (251 A.D)

“I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen [Bishop of Rome], that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority… Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter.

…What strifes and dissensions have you stirred up throughout the churches of the whole world! Moreover, how great sin have you heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity” – Firmilian of Caesarea, Letter 74:17, 24 & Second Council of Iconium (268 A.D)

“Let the holy, great, and ecumenical Council, which by the grace of God, and the orthodox faith, and the authority of our piety has been assembled in this God-preserved royal city, be considered worthy of all honor and of being esteemed by all. For we… have given to it [the assembling of the great ecumenical Council of Bishops] the precedence and the first rank, and have confessed together with it, as well as with all the others who hold the true and apostolic faith, the word of the Lord and the letters of the holy fathers who have from time to time met in four holy councils, we have both glorified God, who has counted us worthy to assist at so holy an assembly, and we have recognized the doctrine of the apostles which has been preserved unto the end in holy and unbroken succession, and which we have both followed and confessed with our whole heart. Nor is there any other way the truth can be made manifest, or falsehood laid bare.” – Letter of Emperor Justinian I to the council fathers assembled at the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553 A.D)

By these councils, the Orthodox makes its argument that only a great council of all of the world’s Ecumenical bishops and churches, may declare Church doctrine, not one man or one territorial church (such as Rome), and that it had always been that way from the beginning.

Whilst many Catholics will be quick to respond by quote mining early Christian texts of the 2nd-3rd centuries of the Overseer of Rome being called “Pope” who “sits in the chair of Peter”, it’s also important to keep in mind that even the term “pope” itself, meaning “abba father” (though I hold its usage for Christian Elders to be something contradicting the instructions of the Lord himself at Matthew 23:8-9 on religious titles) was once a universal term for all Elders before it was set to be used exclusively by the Overseer of Rome in 5th century:

The word pope derives from the Greek πάππας (páppas), meaning ‘father’. In the early centuries of Christianity, this title was applied, especially in the East, to all bishops and other senior clergy, and later became reserved in the West to the bishop of Rome during the reign of Pope Leo I (440–461), a reservation made official only in the 11th century. The earliest record of the use of the title of ‘pope’ was in regard to the by-then-deceased patriarch of Alexandria, Heraclas (232–248). – Pope, Wikipedia

So we begin to see a pattern as time progresses, of authority getting more and more autocratic and consolidated in the Church at large.

Whilst I have seen and admit it is evident, that the Church or Congregation in Rome was highly respected as early as the 2nd Century A.D by many Elders and Christian communities, and was seemingly associated with both Paul and Peter who had apparently, according to tradition, met there with the Christian community at large to settle universal matters of the core faith shortly before they were killed, it was never said to have been eternally infallible in its descisions, it was never said to have been immune to apostasy, and it never had the ultimate power to rule over or override all other Christian communities, as has been made evident in several early Christian writings and councils over the years.

The divisions of the congregations with Rome, can be seen to go back quite far in history, even to the 2nd Century.

We see early on, the Overseer from Rome trying to enforce their own traditions and ways of doing things concering the date of holding the Passover Communion, upon the Eastern and more Jewish-minded congregations of Asia-Minor (who unlike the Western Roman Christians, wanted to keep holding it on Nisan 14th according to the Hebrew calander), in which several Elders and Overseers around the world, such as Polycrates of Ephesus, and Irenaeus of Lyon, pushed back on, declaring their right to their own local traditions and autonomous decisions, and that if the Overseer of Rome attempted to force them to comply, that they would “obey God rather than men”, as cited by 4th century Church historian Eusebius:

“Among them was Polycrates, a man of no mean eminence, who held the helm of the church of Ephesus. In his letter to Pope Victor and the church of Rome, he [Polycrates] uses these words [summarizing his stance], among the rest, speaking of the Passover in his own language as follows:

‘We therefore observe the genuine day; neither adding thereto nor taking therefrom.… I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord and conversed with brethren from all the world, and have gone through every holy scripture, am not affrighted at the things that are said to terrify me. For they who are greater than I have said, ‘We ought to obey God rather than men‘ [- Polycrates, 180s A.D].

Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.

Among them was Irenaeus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the “Lord’s day” namely Passover. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom…

…And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of [Bishop] Anicetus [160s A.D]… neither could Anicetus [of Rome] persuade Polycarp not to observe [the Nisan 14 observance of Passover] what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.” – Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, Book 5, Chapter 24

After this, we see there were other early Christians also concerned with the ever growing power and presumptuousness of the Roman Elders.

For example, complaints in regard to Overseer Zephyrinus, who was a disciple and the successor of Victor in 199 A.D. The Christian history writer Hippolytus, notes that he was corrupt and eager for power over all the congregations, and that Callixtus (who became the next Overseer of Rome) followed after him also:

“At that time, Zephyrinus [Bishop of Rome] imagined that he administered the affairs of the Church. He was an uninformed and shamefully corrupt man. He, being persuaded by proffered gain, was accustomed to connive at those who were present for the purpose of becoming disciples of Cleomenes. But after a while, he himself was enticed away. So he hurried headlong into the same opinions [of Monarchianism]. And he had Callixtus as his adviser and a fellow champion of these wicked tenets…” – Hippolytus, Refuation of all Heresies (200s A.D)

Again, in the 3rd Century, Tertullian, who, for his belief in Montanism (said to be an early heretical movement of ecstatic false prophets) reacted strongly toward Callixtus I, Overseer of Rome in his day, for trying to further consolidate power to himself in reaction of his disagreement with the Montanists, just as Victor previously did in reaction to his disagreement with the quartodecimans, and his own teacher Zephyrinus.

Tertullian stated his opinion that the true church was not an institution or something overruled by Elders or Popes, but the gathering of those with faith and spirit:

“But”, you [Bishop Callixtus of Rome] say, “the Church has the power of forgiving sins.” This I acknowledge and adjudge more than you; I who have the Paraclete Himself in the persons of the new prophets, saying; “The Church has the power to forgive sins; but I will not do it, lest they commit others withal.” … I now inquire into your opinion, to see from what source you usurp this right to “the Church”.

If [it is] because the Lord has said to Peter, “Upon this rock will I build My Church, to you have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom”; or, “Whatsoever you shall have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens”, you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter. What sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter [alone]?!

…What, now, has this to do with the Church, and ‘your’ church, indeed, Psychic (materialistic-person)? …For the very Church itself is, properly and principally, the Spirit Himself… And thus, from that time forward, every number of persons who may have combined together into this faith is accounted a Church, from the Author and Consecrator of the Church. And accordingly the Church, it is true, will forgive sins: but it will be the Church of the Spirit, by means of a spiritual man; not the Church which consists of a number of bishops. For the right and arbitrament is the Lord’s, not the servant’s; God’s Himself, not the priest’s (elder’s).” – Tertullian, On Modesty (220s A.D)

By the 1050s, the Eastern Churches, after witnessing one too many power plays for near to 800 years, and for what they believed to be doctrinal heresies, completely split from holding fellowship with the Western Roman Churches.

After the Roman Church added the doctrine of the “filioque” to their dogmas (the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son along with the Father, which they argued contradicts the “inspired Creed of Constantinople”, concerning the nature of the Holy Spirit, in that it only proceeds from the Father), and many other doctrinal disagreements with the Papacy that only increased in number over time (which they refused to change even though the Eastern Bishops opposed), this caused the what’s now called “East–West Schism” creating the distinction between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

When Roman primacy and Pope infallibility was first written in stone at First Vatican Council in 1870, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, along with a sect of Catholics now known as “The Old Catholics”, also declared this to be a violation of ancient tradition, and especially the Fifth Council, which they argue declares only a full world council of Bishops unified in unanimous agreement may declare what is infallible doctrine or not.

In this stead, the Eastern Orthodox have declared the Catholic Church’s interpretation of the “Rock and Keys of Peter” (Matthew 16:18-19) being the claimed scriptural basis of Rome’s authority, to be a flawed misinterpretation of scripture, and that according to the many differing interpretations of the ancient church writings of the Patristics such as those of Irenaeus, Origen, and even later Catholics such as Augustine of Hippo, Jerome, Ambrose of Milan and John Chrysostom who supported the notion of the position of a pope; that the rock was Peter’s faith, and that all the Apostles were given the Keys of authority, and that it is not one man sitting upon a throne, but as Ecunemical tradition and history of the Church has long stated, only a full council consisting of the “full Body of Christ”:

“Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer… Peter’s confession is the solid rock on which the Church is built, not Peter himself. For other apostles also received the same power of binding and loosing, yet all were not Peter.” – Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 229

“Why then does He say, ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’? Because Peter had said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered: ‘You are Peter,’ for every believer is Christ. Therefore, ‘You are Peter’ because you are Christ’s, ‘and upon this rock’ because of this faith, ‘I will build my Church.’ Wherever there is a Christian, there is the Church. ‘The gates of Hell’ means not the portals of death, but the spurious doctrines of heretics.” – Jerome, Commentary on Matthew, Book 3

“The Lord Jesus himself placed the foundation of the Church on Peter, by saying, ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ For Peter’s confession is the rock of the Church….” – Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Gospel of Luke, Book VI

“So then, let us see what is the meaning of ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ The Lord Jesus gives them to Peter, not to him alone but to the others also with him, as he says, ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.'” –Ambrose of Milan Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David, Exposition of Psalm 40

“Christ himself… gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven to all the apostles together, saying, ‘Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'” – Cyril of Alexandria, Against Julian, Book I

“And if any should say, ‘How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?’ I would reply that He [Jesus] appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair, but of the world. But this was no reason for Peter to be deprived of the chair. For he that was entrusted with the world, and whose feet were washed by the Lord, was not likely to be deprived of the chair of the apostles.… But observe how Peter does everything with the common consent: nothing imperious, nothing magisterial“. – John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, 54

And this being argued to be supported also by scriptures such as:

• So the Twelve summoned all the disciples… This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism.” – Acts 6:2-5
• “Then the apostles and the elders, together with the whole congregation, decided to send chosen men from among them to Antioch, along with Paul and Barnabas; they sent Judas who was called Barsabbas and Silas, who were leading men among the brothers. They wrote this and sent it through them…” – Acts 15:22-23

That we see that even though Peter was present, it still had to be the consent of all the Elders present. And that we even see the last person of authority to speak and make a final judgement, was not Peter, but James (Acts 15:13).

And, indeed, I am in full agreement with my Eastern Orthodox brothers on this matter, for this too was my own conclusion on the matter when I studied the scriptures for myself after I had long been raised in a church of unquestionable top-down authority since childhood which I had long took for granted without critical thought, and only by realising such a thing was I personally able to free myself of the false doctrines they espoused.

Of course, even if this proves the Catholic Church to be in a state of heresy of apostasy, why then do I not choose to be Orthodox instead?

Well likewise, for the same reasons as I do the Catholics. Whilst I think they hold to ‘more’ truth than the Church of Rome does, that isn’t exactly a “high bar” to beat. And ironically, I think the Catholics also get ‘some’ things correct that the Orthodox do not. Furthermore, I also just think that the Orthodox Churches have the same issues concerning their leadership and councils, that the Catholics do, that of their claim to inspired infalibility when united as a council of Elders.

Whilst it is ‘closer’ to the original Apostolic tradition, there is a flaw, which I think if an Orthodox reader of scripture took to his or her full conclusion, and read ‘even more’ carefully, it would place the same standard of criticism upon them also:

• “Then the apostles and the elders, together with the whole congregation…”

This is something I have pointed out previously in my article on Elders, that the writings of the Apostles tell us, that it wasn’t just the Apostles, or Elders that were considered the “body of the Anointed One”, but ‘everyone’, both “clergy” and “laity”.

As I quote again from an Eastern Orthodox Archpriest I once heard from:

“The holy voice is of the Holy Spirit when the Church is in council… [The docrine of] the infallibility of the Pope is a total overturning of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Body [of Christ], as the Body [of Christ], with the head speaking in council, as was the case from the beginning in the very Acts of the Apostles…. In every local church, in every place, there’s a eucharistic cynics, when one resides in Christ in love, and in the midst of them; two or three, Christ is in their midst, and he speaks to them when they are gathered in his name, in the eucharist, in him and for him… [Christ] didn’t say in Rome only. In each local [Orthodox] church the fruitage of the Spirit is present, and the discernment of the Spirit is present. It’s bizarre to say the least [that we need the Pope], because if you have Christ, how can you be lacking anything?”. – Peter Heers, Eastern Orthodox Archpriest

He makes it clear, that it’s to deny the rest of the Body. But all believers are that body (1 Corinthians 12:27). And so I don’t think even he fully realises what he’s saying, since he also is defining that “Body” as “the Bishops only” in his world view. The authority of the councils. But as scripture has shown, it’s the “whole congregation”, ‘with’ the Apostles and Elders, that come together as one body to study, pray and meditate on the scriptures and make descisions.

In my eyes, the Orthodox just have “many popes” who get together as a council to decide doctrine, and that’s still not the inclusion or respect of the ‘full body’s’ ability to understand scripture themselves and make conscientious decisions. Having many “infallible popes”, isn’t much of a step up from just one.

As I have mentioned previously on this matter, the Apostles gave all of us as individuals automomy of understanding the teachings and traditions as set down by the Lord Yeshua and the Apostles he directly appointed to teach his ministry, even unbelievers have this ability to study the scriptures to see if what Christian leaders are teaching is true (Matthew 15:2-3,9, Galatians 1:8-10, Galatians 2:11,14, 2 Corinthians 13:3,5-8, Acts 17:11-12).

Of course, what both Catholics and Orthodox argue against this line of thinking is; “if that’s true, then why do all the Protestant congregations and councils disagree with one another? Their lack of unity is proof they need a clergy as the Lord is not operating through them to united doctrine as he does with us”.

My answer to this is because; one, they are allowed to, rather than being bound by immovable traditions which can never be considered to be wrong or a mistake on part of the previous men who agreed to them. Secondly, we all have different opinions because we do not have direct inspiration or prophethood as the 1st century Apostles did. In fact, not even all in the 1st century were given prophetic inspiration (1 Corinthians 12:30-31).

An Orthodox or Catholic would reply; “that’s why you need Apostolic tradition, to have ordained ministers in a line of succession to get together where the Holy Spirit dwells to guide their councils”.

But as we have already seen, even the Catholic, Old Catholic, and Orthodox councils all disagree with one another despite having the one and same Apostolic succession of Elders. And some of those councils were either overturned or ignored or contradicted completely by later councils. Which shows that not all councils are infalible or guided by the Spirit.

This is also another big part why the Catholics, Old Catholics, and Orthodox are forced into pointing fingers at one another for being “false churches” who no longer have the holy spirit guiding their decisions and doctrine making, and this in itself also tears apart the claim of Pope or Bishop council infalibility, be it from the Catholics or Orthodox, or any other church laying claim to an Apostolic succession of Elders, because it demonstrates that ‘mass apostasy’ can happen amongst an entire Church of ordained “Apostolic Elders” and their councils.

From the Catholic point of view, if the Orthodox are wrong, then it means that ‘despite’ the claim to passing down of the spirit and ordination of laying of hands to their Elders (which is recognised as still to be authentic by the Catholic Church along with their sacraments), that the entire “spirit ordained Church of the East” don’t have any guidance to correct doctrine in their councils. And the same in reverse if the Catholics are wrong, that their Elders along with the Pope who sits on their “Holy See” as they call it, despite having “spirit ordained ministers” by the laying of hands, have lost God’s guidance when it comes to their declaration of doctrines and councils.

Another point to make is that since not all “have gifts of prophecy” or “inspiration”, as is written in scripture, one cannot guarantee that the members consisting in the councils, can even speak via guidance of the Spirit, as the first Apostolic councils had the presence of the inspired, of those whom were prophets which they could appeal to, specifically the inspired Apostles themselves who could confirm the agreement had amongst the entire Congregation.

Today, even in the ordinations of their Elders and claims of passing down the Spirit from one to another, they cannot ‘control’ the gifts that a person may or may not recieve. And Paul even stated that at one time or another, certain gifts would “cease” (1 Corinthians 13:8). The only way to speak absolute infalible doctrine is to have the gift of inspiration or prophethood, which historically was always proven by the greater works of the spirit in those individuals, such as miracle performing or foretelling in line with God’s laws (Deuteronomy 13:1-5, Exodus 4:1-5, 1 Kings 17:17-2, 2 Kings 4:1-7, 32-37, 5:1-14, Acts 3:1-10, Acts 5:12-16).

History has shown that councils many a time were often splintered or divided over their opinions. The Arian controversy is a prime example of the Church being split in half, and only being forced into unity by the interference of tyranical Emperors such as Constantine and Theodosius (whether that in support of Arianism or Trinitarianism):

“By the 350s it [Arianism] had apparently succeeded in winning over a substantial majority of bishops and was close to becoming accepted Christian dogma… For forty years after Arius’s death the controversy that bears his name, inflamed by complex interconnections of Church and State, would continue to trouble the Homan world….” – When Jesus became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome, Richard E. Rubenstein

“Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination… The show of agreement pleased Constantine, who had no understanding of the theological issues, but in fact there was no unanimity at Nicaea… for more than 40 years after the death of Constantine, Arianism was actually the official orthodoxy of the Eastern Empire“. – Encyclopedia Britanica 1971, Vol 6, Constantine & A History of Christianity, by Paul Johnson

“By 379, when Valens was succeeded by Theodosius I, Arianism was widespread in the eastern half of the Empire, while the west had remained steadfastly Nicene. Theodosius, who had been born in Hispania, was himself a Nicene [Trinitarian] Christian and very devout. In August, his western counterpart Gratian promoted persecution of heretics in the west. The [Theodosian] Edict of Thessalonica was jointly issued by Theodosius I, emperor of the East, Gratian, emperor of the West, and Gratian’s junior co-ruler Valentinian II, on 27 February 380…

The Edict of Thessalonica declares… ‘the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit‘ to be ‘one deity‘… Theodosius spent a great deal of energy trying to suppress all non-Nicene forms of Christianity, especially Arianism, and in establishing Nicene orthodoxy throughout his realm… The other sects lost the right to meet, ordain priests, or spread their beliefs… execution [by the sword]… may be cited as typical of the treatment of heretics conditions in that time…. Theodosius forbade heretics to reside within Constantinople, and in 392 and 394 confiscated their places of worship”. – Edict of Thessalonica, Scholarly Community Encyclopedia

Therefore, we must not take any post apostolic council or man as infalible unless we have 100% proof of them speaking from the holy spirit directly.

So the question as such boils down to this; are the Elders of the Catholic and Orthodox councils inspired or not in order to make doctrinal declarations like the Apostles were able to when in council? Were they or were they not influenced by other outside, pagan, evil, or otherwise opressive forces, spiritual or physical? How would we even know? Well my answer is, to follow the advice given to us by the most ancient of the holy writings preserved for us by the Apostles:

• “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be under a curse!“. – Galatians 1:8-10
• “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. – 1 John 4:1

As John says to all of us; we test them. And as Paul says, this applies to ‘all’, even angelic beings and church authorities. And how then can we test them, other than by comparing what the later councils have said, through the “spirits” that may or may not talk through them, to the previous councils and teachings of the Apostles, as recorded in the scriptures, as can be understood by all men and women, even the non-believers (Acts 17:11-12, 2 Corinthians 13:3, 5,7). Scripture says we are not reliant upon the councils or elders to understand the earliest divine words, traditions and scriptures, of both the Torah and the Apostles.

Hence, I hold that it is incumbent upon us all to listen to the Lord Yeshua and his Apostles, as individuals of that one united body, and involve ‘ourselves’ as part of these post apostolic councils, as members of them in restrospect, who either approve or do not approve of them, appealing, not to the primacy of the Church, or the Pope, or the Bishops, but to the primacy of the words of Yeshua and his earliest Apostles, to hold to “Prima Scriptura”.

We hence must test the spirits by testing all future councils and doctrines against the earliest councils and doctrines of the Apostles themselves, and words of our Lord Yeshua over all that. Their decisions with the Lord’s words are the “primal” foundation of the faith and doctrine. Any councils or doctrines after this that contradict must be rejected.

In this respect, I personally by my own understanding, adherence and conscience, to the oldest Apostolic traditions and councils of the first century, and even of later writings from the 2nd-3rd that are in line with the 1st century, but are clearly in contradiction with those from the 4th, 5th and beyond… as a “retrospective witness” of the Ecumenical Councils, consider the congregations of Catholic Rome, and of the Orthodox, to be apostate.

Likewise, I hold that many of the congregations of the Protestant traditions are suffering from the same apostasy of doctrine.

As such, my own mission, my desire, is to seek the earliest church, past the creeds, past the traditions, past the Protestants, past the Orthodox, past the Catholics, even past the early Christian ante-Nicene writers if need be, but to the earliest way of Christian belief and life, and to live it out personally in faith, alongside other bretheren who are with me in this unity of seeking the will of our Lord and Master, and of our God.

And that’s why I’m neither Catholic, nor Orthodox, nor Protestant, but Restorationist.