Discussion with regards to Church history

[Thinkingstuff]

I've been away for awhile and when I got back the thread I was discussing this issue of Church history was shut down. Rightly so it was begining to get nasty. However, DHK posted and I hadn't had the opportunity to get back with him so I wanted to answer his questions with regard to his post.

My Statement

You are wrong DHK. The Roman Catholic Church did not exist until 1054 Agnus Dei is correct about that.

DHK's response

? According to who? Just who are you reading?
History according to the Orthodox church?
History according to the RCC?
History according to the Landmark Baptists?
History according to the Mormons?

You are very biased aren't you. You yourself are looking at history through rose-colored glasses. Try looking at things more objectively. History looked at through the eyes of the Bible is the most objective.

I think this is the crux of the issue under discussion here. I've noted two things in the reply that I would like to respond to. 1.

According to who? Just who are you reading?

Well, DHK I study a lot of different historical text. Note btw that while growing up I lived overseas until I graduated from High School. So my education has been a mix of French, English, and American. I studied history in each setting. When I got back to the US after a stint in the Air Force I went to University in Tennessee and studied both world and US history there. That was a COG University. I completed my graduate Studies in Pennsylvania at an American Baptist University. Currently, I've read the works of Carroll who is currently in the library at my Church most of it is commentary but you get an Idea of his historical perspective. Currently I've read Zondervan's History of Christianity more of a synopsis really than an indepth study of History, I've Rose Publications History of Christianity another synopsis but has good timelines and quick referrence guides, I've read Dr. Hall discourse on the Early church Fathers from my Alma Mater, I've read JND Kelly an Anglican, I've read John Vidmar a Catholic, I've Read Bruce Metzger, FF Bruce, and Norman Geisler. Note along with these I have read the english translations for many of the ECF. I have one book of the ECF that has the greek on one page and the english on the other. And just for fun I've gone through some of the works of Messianic Jewish writers commenting on the Jewishness of Jesus. And of couse I've read the writings of the second temple period and an analysis by Jewish/Israeli scholar David Flusser. Now I hope that gives you the background for my historical perspective. Note with the statement about the Catholic Church I was saying that as a summery statement. The Roman Catholic church became distinctively that during the Schizm. However, there are traces that are before that but those traces are just as similar to EO as it is to RC. Note there have always been some differences between East and Western Christians. Easterns were always a bit more philisophical while the Western Christians leaned closer to a legal interpretive view of Scripture. The second thing I would like to comment on is your statement

Try looking at things more objectively. History looked at through the eyes of the Bible is the most objective

. Strictly speaking this is an inacurrate statement. The bible is most subjective. Thats not to say it isn't accurate nor does it deny its validity but the bible is subjective and is very much the perception of God. However, what most christians seem to have a problem with is that they read the bible in their modern context alone rather than the context of when it was written. Nor do they know the context in which the bible was compiled in. I think that with my experiences that I may be a bit more objective than some and less objective than others but I try to give it a fair go.

Not true. It wasn't a "universal church." There was no such thing

Unfortunately, there has been there are too many writings from peoples of antiquity to suggest otherwise.

Read the KJV which was translated about 400 years ago, and still the most common translation used today

I have and I have a copy which I referrence. And the definition of Bishops have not changed though you limit their responsibilities from the begining. When in fact the only reason their area's of responsibilities were smaller is because the number of christians were few and as they grew their positions became increasingly more administrative. This also can be determined in the study of ancient writings and texts.

Of course he did. Here is an example:

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

He taught Timothy to teach others the same things that he had taught to him. That is to keep everyone on the same page, lest error should creep in. That has nothing to do with denominationalism, but rather with the purity of the churches that were established. Paul was concerned with pure doctrine.

True nothing to do with denominationalism everything to do with universalism. Apostolic Succession can be argued from the same text. You do nothing here to further your position.

Chapter and verse please. I don't find this in the Scriptures.

Of course:

Now those who had been scattered by the persecution in connection with Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, telling the message only to Jews. 20Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also...-Acts 11:19-20a; 22News of this reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. 23When he arrived and saw the evidence of the grace of God, he was glad and encouraged them all to remain true to the Lord with all their hearts. Acts 11:22-23; Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. Acts 11:25-26a.

Shortly there after

In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." 3So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off. Acts 13:1-3

Note in each of his Journeys

where there was a Jewish synagogue. 2As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

There was no such thing--ever!

Really? Well this verse seems to disagree with you

22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

They certainly were putting everyone on the same page from Jerusalem by letters. If your supposition were correct then each church individually would have decided how to treat gentile believers.

Is this RCC revised history?
There was a "university" or a learning center at Alexandria.
Constantinople became a political center, as did Rome.
The Bible says: "And they were first called Christians at Antioch

No to the first
And Yes to the rest.

 

[billwald]

Under Constantine all denominations except the Orthodox Catholic Church were banned. The Bishop of Rome split from the historical church in 1054 theoretically over their addition to the Nicene Creed but pragmatically it was power politics.

Personally, I think the Orthodox Church makes the better case.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm

http://catholic-legate.com/articles/filioque.html

http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/html/TheGreatSchism.htm

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Under Constantine all denominations except the Orthodox Catholic Church were banned. The Bishop of Rome split from the historical church in 1054 theoretically over their addition to the Nicene Creed but pragmatically it was power politics.

Personally, I think the Orthodox Church makes the better case.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm

http://catholic-legate.com/articles/filioque.html

http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/html/TheGreatSchism.htm

Its true that there was a joint history in 1054. And to be honest I see the arguments for both sides. The Roman Bishop didn't want the Byzantine Emperor to appoint Bishops and be totally free of monarchial rule. The Orthodox generally believed that the Western Church weren't savvy enough to understand theological subtleties. In an attempt to root out Arianism from the Western Churches the Filioque was devised by a bishop in Spain. This was done without assent from church councils which the eastern churches had an issue with. There were many and diverse issues culminating with both sides excommunicating the other. Though I must admit that Rome was the most disrespectful in 1054. BTW there weren't denominations back during Constantine. There were the Donatist who were upset that Christians could serve in leadership even though they sacrificed to the Roman gods during the Dioclesian persecution and felt these "traitors" weren't real Christians. And the vast majority of other churches that allowed repentance for these people. Then there was the Arian debate. However, apart from these the seperations were Christians from gnostics. Constantine told the Churches to figure out what was orthodox and stick to it thus Nicea. He would have accepted Arianism if it had won out. But there was a landslide victory to the "Nicean" Christians. Arianism lasted a bit longer but eventually as men like Ambrose stood up to the Emperor and against the Arians. For the most part Christian entire was universal and these others weren't denominations as much as speculative Theology being sorted out and Orthodoxy being established.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I learned long ago not to waste time banging your head against the wall by trying to discuss church history with Catholics.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I learned long ago not to waste time banging your head against the wall by trying to discuss church history with Catholics.

Good no worries then since I'm not Catholic and I don't think Billwald is either unless I'm mistaken.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Good no worries then since I'm not Catholic and I don't think Billwald is either unless I'm mistaken.

Then why are you defending their heresies?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

You are wrong DHK. The Roman Catholic Church did not exist until 1054 Agnus Dei is correct about that.

I've posted this here a couple of times here before, but I'll post it again...

The 'Roman Catholic' Church began in 1054 (at the Great Schism). However, the Catholic Church in Rome began mid-first century AD. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[billwald]

I am not a Catholic. I belong to the Christian Reformed Church which accepts the ecumenical creeds as defining the Christian religion in the areas that they include.

I think that the Orthodox Church represents historical Christianity better than do the Catholics because, seems to me, that claiming the HS precedes from the Father and from the Son sets up a sort of 3 person chain of command which defeats the Trinity concept.

Seems like the topic of ecumenical creeds should be outside the interest of Baptists, anyway.

 

[Marcia]

I've posted this here a couple of times here before, but I'll post it again...

The 'Roman Catholic' Church began in 1054 (at the Great Schism). However, the Catholic Church in Rome began mid-first century AD. :smilewinkgrin:

Where is the evidence for this? Or do you mean "catholic" in the generic sense?

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Seems like the topic of ecumenical creeds should be outside the interest of Baptists, anyway.

Why's that? I love the ecumenical creeds. They are great tools for teaching others about Christianity.

 

[Matt Black]

Which Ecumenical Councils, out of interest, do people here subscribe to?

 

[Matt Black]

Under Constantine all denominations except the Orthodox Catholic Church were banned.

Don't you mean Theodosius, who banned (a)Arianism and (b) paganism?

 

[Matt Black]

I learned long ago not to waste time banging your head against the wall by trying to discuss church history with Catholics.

Just as well, then, that none of the posters on this thread thus far have been Catholics

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Then why are you defending their heresies?

I don't. Not really. What I do is clarify the argument. I don't buy dishonest look at history just to prove a tennant. Nor do I impute doctrine they do not have on to them. Like the purgatory debate. My reasons for being against Catholic is more practicle. Since, I left the church when I was 15 I'm actually in the group of DHK. People who were once Catholic. However, I never felt a hatred for the Catholic Church and I never bought into Alpha and Omega Ministries claims against the Catholic Church. I actually studied history and I can't correspond some extreem baptist claims with actual documents and finds in history. And when I see an inconsistency I point it out. I honestly believed that the Church has changed (evolved) matching itself with the development of the society and culture and technology surrounding it. I believe there are timeless truths that should never be rejected to favor society, culture, or techonology. And some of these truths are held by all Christians regardless of denominations.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I've posted this here a couple of times here before, but I'll post it again...

The 'Roman Catholic' Church began in 1054 (at the Great Schism). However, the Catholic Church in Rome began mid-first century AD. :smilewinkgrin:

I've not disputed this.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Why's that? I love the ecumenical creeds. They are great tools for teaching others about Christianity.

Hear, Hear.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

I've not disputed this.

I know you haven't...I was just chiming in.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I don't. Not really. What I do is clarify the argument. I don't buy dishonest look at history just to prove a tennant. Nor do I impute doctrine they do not have on to them. Like the purgatory debate. My reasons for being against Catholic is more practicle. Since, I left the church when I was 15 I'm actually in the group of DHK. People who were once Catholic. However, I never felt a hatred for the Catholic Church and I never bought into Alpha and Omega Ministries claims against the Catholic Church. I actually studied history and I can't correspond some extreem baptist claims with actual documents and finds in history. And when I see an inconsistency I point it out. I honestly believed that the Church has changed (evolved) matching itself with the development of the society and culture and technology surrounding it. I believe there are timeless truths that should never be rejected to favor society, culture, or techonology. And some of these truths are held by all Christians regardless of denominations.

And that's why you were defending the Catholic heresy of Purgatory?

I suppose your opposition to Catholic heresies also explains why you have a quote from a Catholic theologian for your signature.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

And that's why you were defending the Catholic heresy of Purgatory?

No I'm not defending Purgatory I've already stated I don't believe in Pugatory. What I am doing is making sure that you argue what it is they actually believe about purgatory which is more about Theosis than "paying". Consider this if you are arguing that Joe Biden is the president and the Catholic says not really Barak Obama is the president but you persist in saying that Biden was elected as president, how effectual of an argument do you have? Thisis how the purgatory debate is being framed here on this thread. When you actually study what it is the Catholics believe then I think the paradigm of the conversation changes and apples will equal apples.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

And that's why you were defending the Catholic heresy of Purgatory?

I suppose your opposition to Catholic heresies also explains why you have a quote from a Catholic theologian for your signature.

He wasn't always Catholic BTW. And the reason I like his signature is the subject of the signature. I find it humorous. Note I don't believe in the Rapture which is a modern invention or relatively modern primarily coming out of the 1800's perputrated by the SDA's and the Scholfeild bible and reached critical mass in the 60's and 70's with the book the Late Great Planet Earth and movies like "a theif in the night" and more recently with the Apocalypse books by Lehaye. I think it wrongly focuses eschatology on the future and causes statements like "well this is just another sign that end is near and I won't be here much longer" also funny episodes of young students jumping up and down doing "rapture checks" and jokes like "when I get caught up I'm going to grab the guy on my left and on my right and about half way Up I'll tell them to repent or I'll let go!" Rather than seeing the Kingdom of heaven is currently here in the Christian body and that we are to subdue to earth to obedience and subjection of Christ. We are to do the work not wait for an uncertian future. I believe Jesus is coming again but not 1 time half way and later a 2nd time fully. I believe when Jesus comes back its will be in entirety and for good. I believe in the resurrection of the body.