Before the reformation

[lookingforthetruth]

We all know what ha-ppen after the reformation, but what was the situation the first 1000 years. The Catholic Church seems to have all the records to prove their existance. I don't consider myself a protestant but a person who recognises only Jesus Christ as the only authority because it was given to Him by the Father which makes Him the high priest over all and does not need any help. Please give me your opinion. We can't go any futher back than about the 15th century.

 

[Helen]

The Catholic church has all the records because they controlled Europe for about a thousand years, including wiping out dissidents. However there are still some histories which have researched before the Reformation and have some pretty good material for you. One I used with my students was Bruce L. Shelley's "History of the Church in Plain Language" (Word Publishing, 1982). It does a very good job of tracking the who, what, why, and where of the Christian faith from its inception. The gates of hell never did prevail and there have always been groups of Bible believing Christians since Christ. What is interesting is that Catholic Europe was considered so pagan by the Irish Christians that they sent missionaries there to help bring people to faith in Christ rather than the church. There are a lot of interesting bits and pieces which let us know that Christ was always there for people on a one-to-one basis and not through any man-made establishment.

 

[mioque]

"We can't go any futher back than about the 15th century. "
"
We can.
There are plenty primary sources available that were written by members of groups that were persecuted by the RCC.
Just to name 1 example. A group like the Albigenses that was persecuted into oblivion, left behind at least 5 of such religious texts that survive to this day. I'm not talking 5 versions of the same text here.
The Albigenses are not at all a-typical in this regard. The Bogomils, the Waldenses and some others also left us a number of their own sources from that era.

 

[Jimmy C]

Helen

I read that book, found it very interesting. I am also reading "The Story of Christianity" by Justo Gonzalez. Volume I is from Christ to the reformation, volume II from the reformation to the present day. These books are written in narrative form - and follow people and events throughout history that have shaped the church. One thing that I have found interesting are the battles for orthodoxy that we take for granted today. Things like the theology of the trinity, how the veneration of Mary came about and the supposed infallability of the pope!

These books are a good read - I suggest them for anyone who wants a basic history of the church.

 

[arkie pastor]

another good book I recommend for study of church history....is a book written by John T. Christian..."A History of the Baptist"


arkie pastor

 

[Ron Arndt]

There simply were no Baptist churches, as we understand Baptist churches today before the year 1200 A.D. The only prominent church was the Catholic church in both the east and the west. This can be verified by Philip Schaff's History of the Christian church. Philip Schaff was a Protestant by the way.

Yes, there were very small dissident groups, such as the Paulicans, the Donatists and the Montanists. But these groups were heretical by anyone's definition of a Christian church. And in no way similar to the Baptist church today.

 

[mountainrun]

Ron, your contention seems to be that the only dissident groups were heretics.

I would suggest Fox's Book of Martyrs for you.
Millions died at the hands of the inquisitors of the Popes for their faith.

I'm sure the Popes considered them all heretics, but I do NOT.

MR

 

[Craigbythesea]

Helen wrote,

The Catholic church has all the records because they controlled Europe for about a thousand years, including wiping out dissidents.

What is the basis of this most ridiculous and absolutely false statement? We have today thousands of ancient Christian documents that were never in the possession of the Roman Catholic Church. And the ancient Christian documents that they did have in their possession include a vast quantity or material that the Roman Catholic Church believed to be heretical but they did not destroy it. Yes, some stuff was destroyed, but we don’t know how much.

 

[Joseph M. Smith]

Originally posted by Ron Arndt:
There simply were no Baptist churches, as we understand Baptist churches today before the year 1200 A.D.

I am curious about this statement. You are right that early dissident groups cannot be considered Baptist. But to whom are you referring when you give ca. 1200 as the approximate date for Baptists? I don't think you can even find Anabaptists that early. The most typical date for the founding of a Baptist church is 1609, when John Smyth and his group of Separatists who had removed to the Netherlands for a while reconstituted themselves and baptized one another as a "true church of Christ". Tell us about the 1200 date.

 

[mioque]

I'll back Craig on this.
There is a wealth of firsthand information available that is often ignored in baptist circles.
Instead the same questionable stuff is regurgitated ad infinitum.
At least 2 examples of which we've already seen in this thread.

 

[bjonson]

Please keep in mind too that the "Catholic" Church as it is today evolved over the centuries. Many of their anti-biblical heresies weren't around early on but developed later.

 

[saturneptune]

Bjonson,
Agreed. What gives the present Roman Catholic heirachy any claim to a direct link back to Peter. There is a lot of missing links in those early years to the Catholic Church. Popes took it upon themselves to establish the link. Peter and the Apostles certainly did not believe some of the bizarre teachings of the Catholic church today. If the Catholics are the direct link to Peter, the original faith was certainly not preserved well. Is there any evidence of a link? Does any denomination have such a link?

 

[bjonson]

Here is a good place to get started:

http://aomin.org/Whitewash1.html

 

[Joseph M. Smith]

Originally posted by saturneptune:
What gives the present Roman Catholic heirachy any claim to a direct link back to Peter. There is a lot of missing links in those early years to the Catholic Church.

And even if such a link could be demonstrated (a very dubious proposition), what would it mean? We are not saved through the church we belong to, no matter how old it is. Salvation is personal, by grace through personal faith, and no institution can guarantee that its continuity will deliver that.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Originally posted by Joseph M. Smith:
[...... We are not saved through the church we belong to, no matter how old it is. Salvation is personal, by grace through personal faith, and no institution can guarantee that its continuity will deliver that.

Salvation is OF the LORD, who giveth eternal life to whom He will.

You are right about one's theology or religious affiliation being of no significance to one's eternal salvation, though.