Where did the Church first go wrong?

[Light of the East]

Your logic is based on the same thing our catholic brother is saying which pre-supposes a hard break between OT Judaism and New Covenant reality. That is replacement theology and needs to be rooted out of the church in every sector. Off the rails.

Then you will have to throw out Matthew 21: 33-46. Jesus made it so clear that the Jews were finished as the covenant congregation that even the deaf and dumb Pharisees at the end of that chapter heard and understood that He was speaking against them.

The Old Covenant is gone. You need to retool your theology

 

[Albion]

Protestant groups reject the worship of the Early Church, weaves their own song and dance out of thin air, dispute with every other Protestant body over doctrine and morals, and then pretends they is the "Church." This is a bad joke.

Denominational loyalties aside, we need to be factually correct in these kinds of posts. Not only is "Protestant groups" an unfairly broad term, but the largest of the Protestant communions certainly DO maintain the worship of the Early Church, even if some others do not.

In addition, precious few Protestant churches consider themselves to be "the Church." It is standard thinking among Protestants that the true church is NOT to be identified by membership in any particular denomination.

 

[Light of the East]

I believe that the biggest mistake the "church" made was when it was subsumed by the Roman government under Eusebius and Constantine, blended with the Mithra cult (including the role of Pontificus Maximus, priests, nuns, monks, Madonna worship, etc), adopted Mass (from Masa, the sun disc wafers representing Ba'al, the sun-god, whose body it was supposed to represent [hence the word canniba'al]), and the mystery cult ceremonial structure. Then, once the government proclaimed "Christianity" the official state religion, they promptly outlawed all other forms of it that weren't "orthodox" and drove the true church underground. What's amazing is that despite all of this, true believers still emerged from this new, Christianized Mithra cult. They would pop up now and then, be labeled heretics and killed (see Foxes Book of the Martyrs), until Martin Luther. True believers STILL emerge from the RC church despite all of this. but that just shows you the power of God, not the rightness of the organization.

I see you have memorized your little Chick tracts, eh? I suppose I should feel a tad sorry for you, having been under the same deception myself for 25 years. What a shock it was to find out that everything I was taught from Jack Chick, Lorraine Boettner, "Dr." Bob Jones, Alexander Hislop, and that whole cabal of anti-Catholic bigots was just one gigantic lie.

Boettner's anti-Catholic masterpiece, ROMAN CATHOLICISM, from which you have gotten much of your source material (and Chick and the other modern bigots just keep quoting him) was examined by the publisher after publication and found to be so historically inaccurate, so filled with errors, and in general so poorly researched that the publisher of this screed took his hands off it and repudiated it, not wanting to publish a second edition.

The same has been found out about the lurid "Tales of Maria Monk' and other fantasy fabrications of anti-Catholic bigots. Of course, what sealed the deal for me was reading the Early Fathers and finding out that the practices of the Catholic Church both East and West didn't start with Constantine (and the Apostles were not Baptists, no matter what TRAIL OF BLOOD may teach you!). You can find the Eucharist and infant baptism in practice and spoken of in the Didache of the Apostles, which publication is in the latter part of the first century.

You would do well to put down all those anti-Catholic polemics you have been reading and read sermons from the first and second century by the Early Fathers of the Church.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

That sounds like you mean these Christians are sympathetic to Israel or believe that God still has a special regard for the Jewish people. I wouldn't deny that; however, it isn't what I was referring to. You said that


The TV Christian types you refer to are not typical of "Protestantism," nor does it appear that "Protestantism" or "many churches" have embraced the Jewish religion or its practices. That judgment would seem appropriate for the JWs and Armstrongites and a few more, but they're not at all new movements or standard Protestants.

I mean the big tv ministries from the US and some UK ones that are so pro-Israel to the point of trying to emulate their practices. It's a growing and strong movement that all ties into end-time prophecy.

 

[Light of the East]

Denominational loyalties aside, we need to be factually correct in these kinds of posts. Not only is "Protestant groups" an unfairly broad term, but the largest of the Protestant communions certainly DO maintain the worship of the Early Church, even if some others do not.

In addition, precious few Protestant churches consider themselves to be "the Church." It is standard thinking among Protestants that the true church is NOT to be identified by membership in any particular denomination.

Sir, you are a good and kindly person, and I hate to say this because there is no way you can hear my tone of voice in a forum, but there is no assembly outside of Orthodoxy and Catholicism which is directly lined to the Apostles and therefore has valid orders. When Henry VIII broke from Rome, he broke the lineage to the Apostles and that authority was lost.

Anglicanism has a beautiful Liturgy, no doubt. But you do not have succession and therefore have no validity. Honestly, I do not understand, being as liturgically close as you are to Rome as an Anglican, why you just don't admit that and convert? Rome has even offered the Anglican Ordinariate to you folks. Why be so stubborn?

 

[chevyontheriver]

...and all this happened in a council chaired by James, not Peter, and in Jerusalem (as you noted) where James was the host and bishop ordinary, not Peter.

All very good but James was only mentioned as attending in Acts 1, nothing about his being a host or ordinary. You appear to be telescoping Acts 1 and Actsd 15, which were 15 years apart.

In Acts 15, presumably 49 AD, Peter was back in Jerusalem where James was bishop. It was likely he had fled from Rome in the expulsion of the Jews under Claudius and come back to Jerusalem. From there he went to Antioch and then on to Rome after 54 AD when Nero lifted the Claudian ban. So in Acts 15 Peter would not have been the host bishop. But Acts 1 is a different time and reading back James as host bishop would have been an anachronism.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The Church -Ekklisia - those who are "called out" - has never gone wrong or astray. The Orthodox Church of the East and now all over the world has remained true to its genesis with Christ the Lord at Pentecost.

Hello, Aelialicinia, and welcome to CF.

That point isn't going over well in this thread. Sadly, after being moved to GT, this thread has served to do nothing that I can see except excite strife among the brethren. The voices of reason that pop up are being ignored or argued against.

I have to shake my head. If the Church "went off the rails" even before Scripture was written, much less canonized, it seems people coming along 2000 years later would hardly know enough to properly criticize it, wouldn't you think? But it's a popular notion in some circles, and necessary to justify their break with the denomination that broke from the denomination that broke from the denomination of ... and so on. Forgive me, I'm sure this sounds to some like editorializing, or triumphalism, or some equally negative sentiment, depending on their point of view. But I really do find it sad that Christianity is so very shattered, fragmented, and those bits are at war with one another. Divide and conquer? Sounds like the strategy of an enemy.

Anyway, again, welcome to CF! I hope you are blessed by being here. If this sort of thread suits you, then more reasonable voices are always needed. And if it does not, then please know we have many areas of CF, each with a different focus. Let us know if we can help you find your way around. I'm only here myself because this thread was originally in Traditional Theology, where I spend part of my time. I'd like to welcome you to The Ancient Way (TAW) as well, which is the EO forum - please stop in and say hello. As Lent is approaching we may be a bit bumpy in there as well at times. By the grace of God, may we love one another.

God be with you!

 

[Guide To The Bible]

I see you have memorized your little Chick tracts, eh? I suppose I should feel a tad sorry for you, having been under the same deception myself for 25 years. What a shock it was to find out that everything I was taught from Jack Chick, Lorraine Boettner, "Dr." Bob Jones, Alexander Hislop, and that whole cabal of anti-Catholic bigots was just one gigantic lie.

Boettner's anti-Catholic masterpiece, ROMAN CATHOLICISM, from which you have gotten much of your source material (and Chick and the other modern bigots just keep quoting him) was examined by the publisher after publication and found to be so historically inaccurate, so filled with errors, and in general so poorly researched that the publisher of this screed took his hands off it and repudiated it, not wanting to publish a second edition.

The same has been found out about the lurid "Tales of Maria Monk' and other fantasy fabrications of anti-Catholic bigots. Of course, what sealed the deal for me was reading the Early Fathers and finding out that the practices of the Catholic Church both East and West didn't start with Constantine (and the Apostles were not Baptists, no matter what TRAIL OF BLOOD may teach you!). You can find the Eucharist and infant baptism in practice and spoken of in the Didache of the Apostles, which publication is in the latter part of the first century.

You would do well to put down all those anti-Catholic polemics you have been reading and read sermons from the first and second century by the Early Fathers of the Church.

It's not the hierarchy or leadership that is the problem and that is not what the OP is about either. It is poor leadership skills and when that poor performance first appeared.

 

[Albion]

I mean the big tv ministries from the US and some UK ones that are so pro-Israel to the point of trying to emulate their practices. It's a growing and strong movement that all ties into end-time prophecy.

Then I guess the question should be "what practices?"

 

[Guide To The Bible]

I think it was very gradual, and I see three phases of this. In my opinion, it started with Jacob Spener. He saw a lack godly affection, or of godly passion for the practical application of doctrine, in the church. I won't argue that he was mistaken in this observation. He was probably right.

Where Spener went wrong was in his remedy for this lack. I believe the remedy was in the theological past. All that was needed was to revive old teachings, to remind the church of what she once knew and practiced.

Instead, Spener promoted - unintentionally, I suppose - a turning away from doctrine to practical Christianity, like loving people, feeding the poor, etc.. This is not bad, but when doctrine takes a second place to anything else, we go astray. Putting doctrine first is the best way to put Christ first. He is His doctrine. He said so Himself.

Second, Spener's ideas influenced John and Charles Wesley. They had an adversarial relationship with George Whitefield. They often refused to listen to him, and often preached against his preaching. Whitefield once left John in charge of his flock, and while he was gone, John countered his ministry from the pulpit. Dallimore recounts this in his book on Charles Wesley, which I've read.

And third, the Wesley's Methodism led straight into the Pentecostal revivals of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. This is where Spener's slight errors of trajectory led to the church being miles off course.

I have been in a Pentecostal/full gospel church for 30 years, so I have experienced this first hand. My conclusion of those 30 years is that I resolutely deny that we are tripartite - spirit, soul and body, and I deny that we have two parts, and mind and a heart, and I deny that the intellect is the natural mind, as opposed to the spiritual mind, whatever that is. The heart is the intellect. It is the heart that thinks. They are the same thing. And we are two parts - soul and body. Or spirit and body, if you prefer. Soul and spirit are synonyms.

Take away those errors, and what is left of Pentecostalism?

So, where did the church first go wrong? With Jacob Spener. Or maybe it was James Arminius. But I don't want to get into that.

Never heard of him, why are you blaming a virtual no body. He wasn't even waiting in the upper room when it all began to go wrong.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Yup.

That's your novel interpretation. You may find your novel interpretation compelling, but I see it as without any warrant. Peter called for a successor to Judas and his place was filled. They waited in Jerusalem and while waiting brought the number of apostles back up to twelve. There is not even a hint in the text about this action being disobedient. But it does fulfill a narrative for you if you need to find a way to justify rejecting the Church in favor of some splinter.

God nor Jesus told Peter or anyone to select a replacement. Jesus already had that in hand when he selected Paul. Peter Err'ed.

 

[~Anastasia~]

It's not the hierarchy or leadership that is the problem and that is not what the OP is about either. It is poor leadership skills and when that poor performance first appeared.

So seriously ... if the Apostles had such poor leadership skills, and poor performance ... before a word of the New Testament was ever written, or a single Church established ... how do you come by the knowledge of Christianity, and of what they SHOULD have done?

How is it that your vision 2000 years later is clearer than that of men who personally walked with Christ in the flesh for several years of His earthly ministry?

 

[Pastor Jay Randolph]

I enjoy all the post here and encourage everyone to share what the can. My goal is to tell everyone about Jesus Christ, and to work on unity in the Church, regardless of what is going on in the local church building. On this subject. I agree they did not follow what Jesus told them. I am sure God pointed this out to them, and had them repent for this. As for selecting someone today, I think the vote is the best way, and of course everyone, nedds to pray and study on the selection before speaking up

 

[Albion]

Sir, you are a good and kindly person, and I hate to say this because there is no way you can hear my tone of voice in a forum, but there is no assembly outside of Orthodoxy and Catholicism which is directly lined to the Apostles and therefore has valid orders. When Henry VIII broke from Rome, he broke the lineage to the Apostles and that authority was lost.

I appreciate the good will, Light of the East. I really do. However, on the issue we're discussing, you are simply referring me to the theories held by certain churches, the ones that you have been the closest to. The historic fact (and you may assume that this is important to me such that I have studied it carefully) is that no such break occurred.

Anglicanism has a beautiful Liturgy, no doubt. But you do not have succession and therefore have no validity.

The succession is easily proven to be intact. Just because Rome or some other church (not including the EO) say something that's clearly self-serving like you point to here, doesn't make it so.

Honestly, I do not understand, being as liturgically close as you are to Rome as an Anglican, why you just don't admit that and convert? Rome has even offered the Anglican Ordinariate to you folks. Why be so stubborn?

I was a Roman Catholic. Then I converted. To this day, I stand with the catholic faith, but minus the errors that have crept into the Church of Rome over the years. Remove them (as she has done with many other reforms she's made in the direction of Protestantism lately) and there may be some chance of a reunion.

 

[Caminator]

Wow. One person says the Church went off the rails in Acts Chapter 1 and you think it was a guy I've never heard of in the 1700's.

Look up pietism. It is quite popular in evangelical churches all over the world. It just shows how far the church has fallen in 400 years.

Some may see this image as just a thinker who doesn't do anything becoming a thinker who acts on his good ideas. Others contrast thinking with doing, and thereby denigrate thinking, the intellect, theology, theories, etc. It is the practical men who browbeat intellectual Christians who are the dangerous ones. John Gresham Machen wrote about this in 'What is Faith?' in 1925. He raises real concerns in that book, but things have only gotten worse.

 

[Thursday]

But you realize that in Aramaic "Kefa" was an insult. When someone was called that it meant "rock" as in "dumb as a rock."

No valid reason for that assumption. Even in English, rock can be used as a compliment or an insult. Do you think Jesus was insulting Peter when he named him rock?

 

[Thursday]

Yes and no. Cornelius was a "God Fearer." That was someone who was a convert to Judaism in everything except the final step which was circumcision. Jarius and the Roman Centurion with the ill servant were also God Fearers.

Cornelius was also baptized in Jesus, as was his household.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I enjoy all the post here and encourage everyone to share what the can. My goal is to tell everyone about Jesus Christ, and to work on unity in the Church, regardless of what is going on in the local church building. On this subject. I agree they did not follow what Jesus told them. I am sure God pointed this out to them, and had them repent for this. As for selecting someone today, I think the vote is the best way, and of course everyone, nedds to pray and study on the selection before speaking up

Hello Pastor Jay Randolph, and welcome to CF.

I pray that you are blessed by being here.

Sharing the Gospel is a worthy cause. I also agree that unity is God's plan for the Church, as shown by Christ's prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane just before His arrest. I would that we could reach that point. Sadly, the Church is made up of men (and women) and as human persons we have our issues. Thankfully, God has all things in His power. Glory to God!

If you need any help navigating the forums, or have questions, please feel free to ask. We are here to help.

Again, welcome to the forums, and God be with you.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Apparently this is not the belief that started this thread however, Peter their appointed by God leader "stood up" and made a case that they should replace the missing seat. Discussion followed, no doubt about who among the group of the faithful disciples of Jesus might qualify for consideration. They considered all the people, starting from the first called to the end of His mission and apparently arrived at only two names. They prayed that God would lead them in picking between those two with a faith God would help them do so, moving them to act just as He had when He asked them to follow. The election that followed would be His response to moving each of them. So am interested in knowing why such a process seems so wrong. Was it that should have not listened to the pleadings of the man God made their leader? Was it that should not have prayed about it?
You implied they should have waited for Saint Paul's calling which you suggest occurs weeks later. Tradition is that Saint Stephen is one of the first and oldest of the first deacons of the Church, men elected and appointed to address the need to look after the widows in the Church. So the idea Saint Paul's conversion occurs only a few weeks after the election of Mathias is hardly supported by Scripture itself. In fact many would support a death of the first martyr closer to 36AD.

All the growth in both numbers and maturity of those 12 men's leadership roles that would need to occur from Chapter 1 to even having a Church body big enough to start appointing Saint Stephen an administrative roles within as specific as including looking after Greek speaking widows within the Church would not have been possible in just a few weeks. So the premise they would only need to have waited on the Lord a few weeks to fill what Saint Peter saw as an important position within the Church is simply not valid.

To be fair I do have the benefit of hind-sight but you're wrong about the growth because after the 10 days that they were waiting, (in which time the error occurred) the Holy Spirit came and on that day about 3000 became Believers.

The reason the lots cast was error was because we know Paul was Judas' replacement. They were only told to wait.

 

[Dave-W]

The Old Covenant is gone. You need to retool your theology

Oy! It is NEW COVENANT Judaism.