I’m too Catholic to be Protestant, but too Protestant to be Catholic. So I found myself to be an Ante-Nicene Christian.
It looks to me as if you would be comfortable with some form of conservative Anglicanism.
Join the Orthodox Church then!
But the Orthodox Church is no more “ante-Nicene” than the Catholic Church is! :shrug:
We’re still living by the same truths as the church that was founded at Pentecost
Montalban, maybe you missed my point.
“Ante-Nicene” means “pre-Nicene,” and I have heard it applied to churches that do not believe in the Trinity as both Orthodox and Catholics, accepting the definitions of the Nicene Council, do.
When an organization founded in modern times applies the term to itself, it implies to me that that that organization sees a disjunction between the Church as it existed at Pentecost and both the Catholic and Orthodox churches as they exist today.
I’m aware that it means before Nicea. However I was not aware that it is restricted to churches that believe in a pre-Nicea non-Councillar church. Where does such a church exist?
Where does such a church exist?
As far as I’m concerned the faith pre-Nicea is that post-Nicea, excepting it was never ‘set-down’ before.
Many of the African independent churches do not subscribe to Trinitarianism as defined by the Nicene Council; I have heard the term “Ante-Nicene” applied to them.
Maybe you could ask the OP’s author, ClementIcthus, if being an “ante-Nicene” Christian means he belongs to an actual “ante-Nicene” church.
Except when “ante-Nicene” is applied to the Church Fathers who lived before the time of the Nicene Council, I do not see any point in using the label unless it identifies someone or something as rejecting the theology of the Nicene Council. Why would someone say that they are “Articles of Confederation” Americans if they did not have some problem with the Constitution?