History of the "Born Again Christian" movement.

[PeaceByJesus]

The differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism are numerous and obvious to anyone actually families with the Churches. Treating Orthodox as if they are Catholics is like if I were to treat Evangelicals like they were Lutherans. Similar in many ways, different and substantially hostile to each other in many as well. So it was a dismissal worthy of reminding you that you're not talking to a Catholic.

I'll list one difference that cuts to the heart of the matter that divides Catholic and Orthodox and that would be ecclesiology. The Pope's place and part in the Church is a matter hotly debated and books have been written on the subject from both a Catholic and Orthodox viewpoint. Does the Pope have unilateral authority to determine by himself a doctrine for the Church without the consent of the other Patriarchs? The Orthodox say no. This isn't minor and this isn't even getting into the competing theological claims concerning the filioque and liturgical differences. Needless to say I'm not doing any justice to the differences that actively keep us apart.
If we are the same, baring one jot or tittle, prove it.

This is simply not relevant, but avoids what is, for once again, as delineated in my post, the issue was not in regards to "the Pope's place and part" nor the filioque and liturgical differences, but the differentiation btwn bishops and presbyters, and the separate sacerdotal class of clergy ordained as "hiereus."

All of which you blithely dismissed with, "Not a Catholic. So again, tell us the difference that warrants this utter dismissal.

 

[Karola]

What is not clear about Hebrews 10:25 and what I’ve written about being a church partner (as opposed to a church pew stuffed member) communing with other believers, joining in ministry work locally, nationally and internationally bringing the Gospel of Christ, providing physical needs and church planting? That is pretty visible to me.

I heard someone speak once. Before he became a Christian(but was looking for answers) his brother told him Christ was in a church in the town he lived in(his brother knew that would get him searching, he loved a challenge) So he went round the churches in his town looking for Jesus. He said, and I quote:
One of the churches I went to didn't bury the dead, they stuck them in the pews

 

[redleghunter]

I heard someone speak once. Before he became a Christian(but was looking for answers) his brother told him Christ was in a church in the town he lived in(his brother knew that would get him searching, he loved a challenge) So he went round the churches in his town looking for Jesus. He said, and I quote:
One of the churches I went to didn't bury the dead, they stuck them in the pews

Was going to give a 'funny' rating but this is quite sobering.

 

[Dale]

Im not sure you can compare more recent institutions.

Even from the earliest days. This didnt apply ....

"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that ALL men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ..."

Arguably it still does not for many minorities. And it never has.

..

Single priests has not failed.

It is an assumption repeated so often it has become fact without ever being proven. There are celibate and married priests both orthodox and catholic.
There is no dogmatic barrier to it, it is the present policy.

What has happened is obnoxious creatures that prey on children have wormed their way in everywhere there are children, from scout movements to , entertainers ( the most recent fiasco in the UK) , swimming clubs to churches.(including the present storm in the anglican church) Sadly all have the problem.

The catholic church is so big that the numbers of them are high. But they are still no more prevalent than in the community generally. And decades ago, the organistations were nowhere near as well trained todeal with it. Bishops were chosen for their sanctity, not their competience or power of observation. Sad but true.

It is also true that children are far more vulnerable in their own homes as victims of people they know. But it is not as newsworthy. Nor do the multimillino claims get publicity. The perpetrators generally are not worth suing. The catholic church is. But onlyif you can find an argument it was complicit. So thats what happens.

Mountainmike in post #65: "Single priests has not failed."

Meaning that celibacy hasn't failed, celibacy works.

Not everyone agrees. Years ago I read a book where the author claimed that the celibacy of priests is one of the forces that kept Catholic countries in poverty for centuries. Priests are among the most educated men in the community but they had no children, or if they did, they could not acknowledge them.

In contrast, in England and Scotland, scientists, engineers, inventors, explorers, novelists, entrepreneurs and industrialists were often the sons of Protestant ministers. It helps to have the most educated people in the community raising children. The Industrial Revolution happened in England, not Italy, Spain or other Catholic countries.

 

[Mountainmike]

I cant speak for that.

I was remarking in a far mmore limited context, that the percentage of offenders in the celibate priest population, reflects the percentage in the population as a whole. So therefore celibacy is not a (statistically) significant factor.

But then most education relies on teaching not just genetic hand down.

Although there is - clearly - a genetic factor in IQ (whatever that is ) and outcome for children of generally higher IQ ( whatever that is ) parents!.


It would be a fascinating question as to the difference in statitistical outcome of priesthood/clergy offspring, compared to those of the norms in the population. Our prime minister is just such.

Mountainmike in post #65: "Single priests has not failed."

Meaning that celibacy hasn't failed, celibacy works.

Not everyone agrees. Years ago I read a book where the author claimed that the celibacy of priests is one of the forces that kept Catholic countries in poverty for centuries. Priests are among the most educated men in the community but they had no children, or if they did, they could not acknowledge them.

In contrast, in England and Scotland, scientists, engineers, inventors, explorers, novelists, entrepreneurs and industrialists were often the sons of Protestant ministers. It helps to have the most educated people in the community raising children. The Industrial Revolution happened in England, not Italy, Spain or other Catholic countries.

 

[Phil 1:21]

I was remarking in a far mmore limited context, that the percentage of offenders in the celibate priest population, reflects the percentage in the population as a whole. So therefore celibacy is not a (statistically) significant factor.

That may very well be true. Perhaps some day if the RCC ever gets serious about flushing out the sex offenders in their clergy, we may know for sure one way or the other.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Actually in John 3 Jesus started the movement.

However, let's be precise. The Apostles and Reformers spoke often of the New Birth and Regeneration. They just did not identify what happens spiritually with a title.

There's a difference between the new birth and the modern Neo-Evangelical movement. All Christians recognize the necessity and importance of Regeneration--the new birth--but the idea that the new birth is a private, esoteric spiritual experience has its basis in the Neo-Evangelical movement of the 20th century, with 19th century Revivalism as its antecedent.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[redleghunter]

You have not demonstrated the word of mouth differs from what was written. Unless of course you have examples of critical apostolic teachings which were not written down. We have Paul in several letters to several different churches teaching the same doctrines, exhortations and corrections.

The above is what I asked.

Of course I have. John 21:25 says it. Not everything is written so there are things that are not put down in writing, so logically there is a word of mouth that is different from the word on paper.

Meaning an appeal to this verse means the traditions later remembered by the church can be neatly stuffed in this verse. That is an argument from silence.

I'm not asking about who was it for originally, i'm asking how did they get the info about Jesus' life? There was no available scripture to tell Mark the whole story of Bethlehem or anything that happened in Jesus life. He was not with Jesus when came out of Mary's womb, he was not there when Jesus was 14, he was not around Jesus personally. So how did he get this info?

When do you think Mark was written? When all the Gospels (save perhaps John) were written, the Apostles were still alive (save James perhaps) and there were many eyewitnesses to the ministry of Christ. Paul says so:

1 Corinthians 15: NASB

3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. 9For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. 11Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

So what we have from the time of Christ's ministry on earth through the Acts of the Apostles and beyond are eyewitnesses, which were "walking and talking New Testaments."

I acknowledged already the apostles preached in public orally and wrote things down. So it was both ways in the apostolic age. They preached, taught verbally and then wrote letters and Gospel accounts. There was no gap in generations or even decades between what was preached and what was written. Irenaeus made that clear in AH 3.1.1.

Because oral tradition comes first. Oral tradition was passed down before the scriptures where made.

Please give me your understanding of the 'flash to bang' meaning from the time it was said to the time it was written. Because the NT record is that both was going on. We know this because Paul actually wrote epistles during his ministry.

You are getting lost in your own arguments. First of all, no one just leaves out a paragraph because you think they are avoiding something. There is a thing in the internet called tl;dr which normally happens when we quote the entire thing. You only needed one sentence to get to the main point in where are converstation began.

So then we are agreed? Based on what I posted, Irenaeus provided an early creed and that is what he is referring to as apostolic tradition. Not the multitude of Roman Catholic doctrinal developments throughout the centuries which RC apologists believe were there from the beginning of Christianity.

You are showing me the whole quote of his that contains all the Bible references he used in his writings, yet you clearly have ignored the point i've made. The fact is, there was nothing in scripture to validate what books are from God and what verses to take his inspiration from. The belief in them were all taught and passed down. That 100% from scripture is from Apostolic tradition. The belief in Matt-Rev and all the stuff they say is not a tradition that was born from the scriptures, it was verbally taught and passed down first. My reference with Mark and Luke is also connected to this. Their writings about Jesus' life isn't 100% taken from written/scripture it is all info passed down to them by his apostles. How did Peter and the rest of the 12 find out about Jesus as a baby, or what the Angel Gabriel said to Mary, or even the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth? The info given to them.

What I was pointing out is that the oft used "Irenaeus supported apostolic tradition" is correct but not what RCs and even EOs think it is. Irenaeus calls the rule of faith (later creed) which I quoted as the tradition handed down from the Apostles. Therefore, the use of his term cannot be a 'all use duffle bag' to stuff in traditions we like. Just as you used John 21:25 as the "General Purpose" verse to argue from silence.

 

[redleghunter]

There's a difference between the new birth and the modern Neo-Evangelical movement. All Christians recognize the necessity and importance of Regeneration--the new birth--but the idea that the new birth is a private, esoteric spiritual experience has its basis in the Neo-Evangelical movement of the 20th century, with 19th century Revivalism as its antecedent.

-CryptoLutheran

Thank you for the distinction. Which would be much different than?:

"At last meditating day and night, by the mercy of God, I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that through which the righteous live by a gift of God, namely by faith. Here I felt as if I were entirely born again and had entered paradise itself through the gates that had been flung open."
​

 

[Petros2015]

One of the churches I went to didn't bury the dead, they stuck them in the pews

They were just tired and worn out after a long squawk...

 

[redleghunter]

Their writings about Jesus' life isn't 100% taken from written/scripture it is all info passed down to them by his apostles. How did Peter and the rest of the 12 find out about Jesus as a baby, or what the Angel Gabriel said to Mary, or even the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth? The info given to them.

I believe your own catechism gives you (and I have too) answers to this. The Holy Spirit inspired the NT writers (supernatural) and the writers made use of actual eyewitnesses (physical material) and in fact were eyewitnesses to the events themselves.

 

[redleghunter]

They were just tired and worn out after a long squawk...

Well at least we know they are not Eastern Orthodox. From what I remember you do most of your mass standing. Hard to prop up the dead that way.

 

[redleghunter]

Well faith in Christ is a believers righteousness/justification

I already asked that question...If we are justified by faith. Waiting for a response.

 

[redleghunter]

Quite simply put, how do you explain Evangelicalism's absence in history until fairly recently?

Is it your impression Evangelicalism is a denomination of some sort? It's not. It spans from Anglicans, to Reformed, to Wesleyan to Baptist to Bible church to even self proclaimed Evangelical Catholics like Rick Santorum.

I think the problem is you are equating those who have dedicated their lives to spread the Gospel, evangelize, to the Biblical term 'born again' which is spiritual regeneration.

Throughout church history, even in the institutional church structure, evangelism continued and souls continued to be regenerated by the Grace of God. I can even see such expressed in the writings of church fathers who understood this and in the liturgy. St John Chrysostom being one of the more prolific writers is one of note:

John Chrysostom Acts 15

Do you mark how closely the trials succeed each other, from within, from without? It is well ordered too, that this happens when Paul is present, that he may answer them. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. Acts 15:2 And Paul does not say, What? Have I not a right to be believed after so many signs? But he complied for their sakes. And being brought on their way by the Church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. Acts 15:3 And observe, the consequence is that all the Samaritans also, learn what has come to the Gentiles: and they rejoiced. And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received of the Church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. Acts 15:4 See what a providence is here! But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together to consider of this matter.

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up and said unto them, Men and brethren, you know how that of old days God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel, and believe. Acts 15:5-7 Observe Peter from the first standing aloof (κεχωρισμένον) from the affair, and even to this time judaizing. And yet (says he) ye know. ch. 10:45; 11:2 Perhaps those were present who of old found fault with him in the matter of Cornelius, and went in with him (on that occasion): for this reason he brings them forward as witnesses. From old days, he says, did choose among you. What means, Among you? Either, in Palestine, or, you being present. By my mouth. Observe how he shows that it was God speaking by him, and no human utterance. And God, that knows the hearts, gave testimony unto them: he refers them to the spiritual testimony: by giving them the Holy Ghost even as unto us. Acts 15:8 Everywhere he puts the Gentiles upon a thorough equality. And put no difference between us and them, having purified their hearts by faith. Acts 15:9 From faith alone, he says, they obtained the same gifts. This is also meant as a lesson to those (objectors); this is able to teach even them that faith only is needed, not works nor circumcision. For indeed they do not say all this only by way of apology for the Gentiles, but to teach (the Jewish believers) also to abandon the Law.

(NPNF1-11. Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans - Christian Classics Ethereal Library) (Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans)​

 

[redleghunter]

Now if I am right that your specific understanding of theology didn't exist what does that mean for Evangelicalism? I can only relate that it makes me personally dismiss the whole idea of Evangelicalism being valid.

Understanding of theology? That which is taught in the New Testament?

Galatians 2:16
Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Romans 3:28
For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Romans 5:1
Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 4:5
And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

Romans 4:3
For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”

Philippians 3:9
And be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—

Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,

John 5:24
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

St John Chrysostom long before any Reformers opined on the Apostle's epistle to the Romans:

Ver. 24, 25. Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness.

[...]

To declare His righteousness. What is declaring of righteousness? Like the declaring of His riches, not only for Him to be rich Himself, but also to make others rich, or of life, not only that He is Himself living, but also that He makes the dead to live; and of His power, not only that He is Himself powerful, but also that He makes the feeble powerful. So also is the declaring of His righteousness not only that He is Himself righteous, but that He does also make them that are filled with the putrefying sores (κατασαπέντας) of sin suddenly righteous. And it is to explain this, viz. what is declaring, that he has added, That He might be just, and the justifier of him which believes in Jesus. Doubt not then: for it is not of works, but of faith: and shun not the righteousness of God, for it is a blessing in two ways; because it is easy, and also open to all men. And be not abashed and shamefaced. For if He Himself openly declares (ἐ νδείκνυται) Himself to do so, and He, so to say, finds a delight and a pride therein, how do you come to be dejected and to hide your face at what your Master glories in? Now then after raising his hearers expectations by saying that what had taken place was a declaring of the righteousness of God, he next by fear urges him on that is tardy and remissful about coming; by speaking as follows:

[...]
(CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 7 on Romans (Chrysostom) Chrysostom Homily 7 on Romans)​

 

[Cis.jd]

The above is what I asked.

Meaning an appeal to this verse means the traditions later remembered by the church can be neatly stuffed in this verse. That is an argument from silence.

Hmm no. John 21:25 answers what you asked: You have not demonstrated the word of mouth differs from what was written. Unless of course you have examples of critical apostolic teachings which were not written down. perfectly because it is telling you that not everything written so logically

It tells you not everything is written, and not every could fit in a book. So there are teachings that were through word of mouth that never entered scripture.

Another example (or answer) is the canon. You believe that there is a closed canon and the Bible you hold is it. You believe if we add/delete any books in the Bible, we would be committing a sin. You believe that the last revelation from God ceased from the last apostle. Am i correct in all of this?

When do you think Mark was written? When all the Gospels (save perhaps John) were written, the Apostles were still alive (save James perhaps) and there were many eyewitnesses to the ministry of Christ. Paul says so:

Exactly, regardless of how or when Mark and Luke wrote the gospels the fact is they did not come from scripture. This info was verbally passed down. Do you think the christian prisoners documented by Pliny the Younger gained their beliefs because of what they read, or what it all verbally taken first? The Trinity itself is a christian belief that isn't worded in scripture, in fact to this day, the fact that there are verses that are like puzzles for this info has caused some to think that the scriptures deny this teaching, but we see in the history of the 1st Christians that they believed this even with out the scriptures being present at the time.

So what we have from the time of Christ's ministry on earth through the Acts of the Apostles and beyond are eyewitnesses, which were "walking and talking New Testaments."

I acknowledged already the apostles preached in public orally and wrote things down. So it was both ways in the apostolic age. They preached, taught verbally and then wrote letters and Gospel accounts. There was no gap in generations or even decades between what was preached and what was written. Irenaeus made that clear in AH 3.1.1.

Yes, and this is the stance of a Catholic. The Apostles gave the word of God through oral and written format. Both has to be kept. What you don't understand is that while scripture is authority it has to be under the guidance of the Church (as Irenaeus put it). Our faith can't go by scripture alone otherwise some guy can make claims and even religions out of what he interprets just as history shows.

That is what his whole quote, that you pasted here, is telling you and that is what you are missing.

The way scripture is interpreted has to be aligned to what the apostles passed down to the church fathers. The Bible is an example of that, because with all the books that were floating around it was Matt-Rev that was passed down by the apostles and because of that the recognization of what is truly God's word for the NT has been taught by the church for generations.

What I was pointing out is that the oft used "Irenaeus supported apostolic tradition" is correct but not what RCs and even EOs think it is. Irenaeus calls the rule of faith (later creed) which I quoted as the tradition handed down from the Apostles. Therefore, the use of his term cannot be a 'all use duffle bag' to stuff in traditions we like. Just as you used John 21:25 as the "General Purpose" verse to argue from silence.

Then who is aligned to the true apostolic tradition, it isn't you protestants because your main rule of faith is Sola Scriptura and there are about 3k+ protestant denominations, each and every one being a reformation of a previous denomination (that includes yours). The RC and the EO are more close to the apostolic tradition that Irenaeus represents. I don't understand how you just blindly put John21:25 as an argument from silence when it is completely clear in saying that not everything is in scripture. What and where is the rest that isn't found in scripture, if you think the RC and EO -two of the oldest christians today isn't following it?

 

[Cis.jd]

I believe your own catechism gives you (and I have too) answers to this. The Holy Spirit inspired the NT writers (supernatural) and the writers made use of actual eyewitnesses (physical material) and in fact were eyewitnesses to the events themselves.

But was it all scripture originally? Wasn't this info all passed down with out writings?

 

[Hillsage]

It is that "the Protestant Canon, which we know differs from the Catholic Canon, even received resistance from Martin Luther, because he had a big problem with the theology problems of the book of James being added to the Protestant bible."

That is a typical faulty Catholic answer, but that the Protestant Canon received "resistance" from Luther is hardly an apt term, and and that he had a big problem with the theology problems of the book of James being added to the Protestant bible" is hardly accurate. For the reality is that Luther's position on the canon was expressly a private judgment, which he said others were free to differ with, and he also died in 1546.

I'll just quote, in the box below, a little bit of one article, which was a 'modern' addressing Martin as if it was an open letter being written today.

"Epistle of Straw?
Not most troubling, but perhaps most in need of clarification today among some Lutherans and Reformed types, is what you said about the epistle of our Lord’s brother, James. You wrote in 1522, in the preface of your German translation of the New Testament, “St. James’s epistle is really a right strawy epistle, compared to these others [Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, 1 Peter, and 1 John], for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.”

“Under God, you were a spark that set ablaze the kindling of centuries of error and abuse.”"
I acknowledge it was early in your career. You did remove this statement from all subsequent editions, but I have been unable to find any clear retraction of it, or any evident change in your view later on. In fact, you made more negative statements about James’s letter throughout your life, even as they were mixed at times with measured commendations. Today, you are widely known in the church as a detractor of James.

The Gospel of James: Open Letter to Martin Luther

I'm not saying this is 'the truth' anymore than your sources. Nor am I saying it relays 'falsehood' any more than your sources. I honestly don't know. I'm just still saying I think I've done no wrong here, even though my sources aren't in abundance like yours. I do thank you for 'your work' in presenting them for me. But my 'brief' perusal of your personal website relays what is most important to me here. You believe in the born again experience. That means that in my book we are 'brothers in Christ'. But we don't have to be 'twin brothers' to still be brothers. And this whole discussion will not add one thing to me standing before the bema judgment seat of Christ for the works I have done 'this side of glory'. So no further response here, is fine with me.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thank you for the distinction. Which would be much different than?:

"At last meditating day and night, by the mercy of God, I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that through which the righteous live by a gift of God, namely by faith. Here I felt as if I were entirely born again and had entered paradise itself through the gates that had been flung open."
​

Luther wasn't making a theological statement about regeneration, but using colorful prose. Here is where Fr. Martin does make a theological statement about regeneration:

"Here you see again how highly and precious we should esteem Baptism, because in it we obtain such an unspeakable treasure, which also indicates sufficiently that it cannot be ordinary mere water. For mere water could not do such a thing, but the Word does it, and (as said above) the fact that the name of God is comprehended therein. But where the name of God is, there must be also life and salvation, that it may indeed be called a divine, blessed, fruitful, and gracious water; for by the Word such power is imparted to Baptism that it is a laver of regeneration, as St. Paul also calls it, Titus 3:5." - The Large Catechism, Section IV, 26-27

-CryptoLutheran

 

[PeaceByJesus]

There's a difference between the new birth and the modern Neo-Evangelical movement. All Christians recognize the necessity and importance of Regeneration--the new birth--but the idea that the new birth is a private, esoteric spiritual experience has its basis in the Neo-Evangelical movement of the 20th century, with 19th century Revivalism as its antecedent.-CryptoLutheran

You mean by a "private, esoteric spiritual experience" hearing the simple gospel message of forgiveness by faith in the Lord Jesus who was crucified for our sins and rose again, and becoming manifestly born again by believing it at that hour (presuming God's drawing and convicting), and confessing that in baptism? Versus being regenerated by baptism even without personal repentant faith? Or needing weeks of formal catachesis before conversion?

Describe the contrasts.