15th and 16th century Christian wars Protestants having wars and even with eachother, what do we think about this today?

stevevw said:

But as time went on and we moved further away from the cross the church became institutionalised and abused its position.

Click to expand...

Insofar as thats true, it is true only of the Roman church and only for a period of about 750 years from the beginnings of the Great Schism with the Orthodox until the reforms of the Council of Trent and the abolition of the Auto da Fe in Spain and Portugal.

The Church has also always been an institution. But the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox have, aside from isolated incidents confined to local churches such as the Patriarchate of Constantinople, never abused their position, not in a general way. The Church of the East, which is related to but not a part of either Orthodox jurisdiction, had for a few centuries an uncanonical hereditary patriarchate but this has been abolished, but this cannot be said to be the entire church abusing its position. And its possible this uncanonical arrangement may have been beneficial in terms of preserving relations with and discouraging predation from the Muslim oppressors in Constantinople and Tehran (since the Church of the East awkwardly straddled the border between the Turkish and Persian empires).

The Liturgist said:

Insofar as thats true, it is true only of the Roman church and only for a period of about 750 years from the beginnings of the Great Schism with the Orthodox until the reforms of the Council of Trent and the abolition of the Auto da Fe in Spain and Portugal.

The Church has also always been an institution. But the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox have, aside from isolated incidents confined to local churches such as the Patriarchate of Constantinople, never abused their position, not in a general way. The Church of the East, which is related to but not a part of either Orthodox jurisdiction, had for a few centuries an uncanonical hereditary patriarchate but this has been abolished, but this cannot be said to be the entire church abusing its position. And its possible this uncanonical arrangement may have been beneficial in terms of preserving relations with and discouraging predation from the Muslim oppressors in Constantinople and Tehran (since the Church of the East awkwardly straddled the border between the Turkish and Persian empires).

Click to expand...

Yes though I think the church has generally become less like the church of Christ moving away from the cross there has always been within these splits and conflicts a genuine presense of Christ working usually in the background. There have been revivals and the interesting thing is that its always an effort to realign with what is considered the tru church, the church as it was after Christ..

The Friars and Monks of the 15th and 16th centuries for example lived like diciples, sacrificing themselves, helping the poor and needy. The Salvos rose up out of a need for helping the poor during the Industrial revolution where many came to the cities for work and ended up in slums.

I think we are overdue for another of these resets. When the church has drifted so far away from its core teachings the need for getting back to basics, to what has worked in the past, to what the teachings actually tell us will work. Which sounds simple but in a world where theres so many distractions it seems out of step and too much a commitment. But thats exactly why it works.

In a world that puts self first, sacrificing your life for another is a radical idea.

stevevw said:

Yes though I think the church has generally become less like the church of Christ moving away from the cross there has always been within these splits and conflicts a genuine presense of Christ working usually in the background. There have been revivals and the interesting thing is that its always an effort to realign with what is considered the tru church, the church as it was after Christ..

The Friars and Monks of the 15th and 16th centuries for example lived like diciples, sacrificing themselves, helping the poor and needy. The Salvos rose up out of a need for helping the poor during the Industrial revolution where many came to the cities for work and ended up in slums.

Click to expand...

All of that is specific to the Western Church. You haven’t said anything applicable to the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches, which have never had anything like the Protestant Reformation. When there have been controversies, it has always been in protest of bishops forcing changes onto the worship of the church which have threatened the continuity between our current worship and that of the Apostles.

The Orthodox, unlike the Western churches, have not drifted away from the original doctrine of Christ in any respect.

The Liturgist said:

All of that is specific to the Western Church. You haven’t said anything applicable to the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches, which have never had anything like the Protestant Reformation. When there have been controversies, it has always been in protest of bishops forcing changes onto the worship of the church which have threatened the continuity between our current worship and that of the Apostles.

The Orthodox, unlike the Western churches, have not drifted away from the original doctrine of Christ in any respect.

Click to expand...

Yes I agree. They have stayed true. I was focusing the west and how the split affected them. How the Protestant split has led to further splits within splits. This contrasts with the Catholic church which like the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches have remained true to the teachings and Gods law and order.

Its no coincident that they have also not been influenced by western ideologies such as Feminism, Egalitarianism and its latest manifestation the Critical theories, DEI and Wokism.

I think too often many Christians say 'we're all friends now.' The things fought over in the past are still important. They didn't war b/c of if they thought the sky was blue or red.

The history of God's chosen people, is the unfolding fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Which has been given to His people, that they might know and understand where they are in history, and what to expect in the possibly near future.

JohnB445 said:

I'm learning about Christian history, specifically the Protestant/Catholic wars 1500's and 1600's and even the persecution of Protestants by other Protestants.

People came aboard the Mayflower for religious freedom, with them were what we would call today Baptists, Anabaptists, and others. Learning about the Puritans as well.

Is all this Christian History learning good or bad? Should I focus more on the Bible? I'm also learning other history perspectives such as Catholic Persecution by Protestants in America as well.

Click to expand...

Actually I think the best place to understand the early church and their belief and practices is from the fist few church fathers like Clement of Rome around 70AD, maybe before who was a disciple of Peter and ordained by him. Also Ignatius of Antioch around 110AD who was a diciple of John. Also Polycarp of Smyrna and a few others that were the disciples of the disciples of the disciples lol.

The point is they were still very much immersed in the aftermath of Christ and the disciples. The stories were still alive and there were people around who were witnesses of knew a witness.

Its here where I think we see the development of the church structure based on the disciples setup. Everything is centered around Christ, being like Him. Many of the leaders as well as ordinary Christians including women from this period were executed so being a Christian meant being a Christian and putting your life on the line.

This was before the church gained political acceptence around 360AD. But even before this you begain to see other teachings develop that are opposing the church and thats why they had the first Council of Nicaea (325) as there was a growing dissention within the church of other denominations with alternative beliefs.

Really this was the case from the start of Christianity as even before Christ the Jews were splitting into sects with their own versions of prophesies and the teachings inclusing the Messiah. There were other Messiahsa and some sect were similar to Christianity claiming the be the Way.

But I think it was the power of Christ and its witness that made the church united and able stay true. But after time this allowed opposing beliefs and I think this setup what would later become a major schism. The Schism also came at a time when we were moving towards the Enlightenment. So people were beginning to question everyng including God.

stevevw said:

Yes I agree. They have stayed true. I was focusing the west and how the split affected them. How the Protestant split has led to further splits within splits. This contrasts with the Catholic church which like the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches have remained true to the teachings and Gods law and order.

Its no coincident that they have also not been influenced by western ideologies such as Feminism, Egalitarianism and its latest manifestation the Critical theories, DEI and Wokism.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Protestants did in fact protest against the abuses of the church enabled by the power of the state. Regarding not just a few major deviations from the “teachings and God’s law and order”. These “teachings and God’s law and order” were the exact points of contention and controversy. Protestants who finally ended up having the scriptures for themselves, noticed a great differences between what the scriptures taught, and what the Roman Catholic Church in particular taught. Whose teachings were enforced by the state, which was itself a major point of contention between the Reformers and the Catholic Church.

Once Protestants became well enough established in certain places, they turned around and developed the same union with the state, which they protested against concerning the Church of Rome. This was understandable as a defense against Roman Catholicism, as it was evident that Roman Catholic leadership demanded the end of all things Protestant. Persecuting, imprisoning, burning at the steak, and wiping out entire Protestant peoples at this very time of history. It was another thing altogether, when they began persecuted other bible believing Protestants, who simply desired what they themselves had obtained concerning freedom of belief and worship.

Which is where the United States comes into the picture, in developing the matured Protestant principle of separation of Church and state. As it was populated largely by many different faiths. Many of whom came here to escape persecution at the hands of intolerant European Roman Catholics and Protestants who enforced their religions by the state. Although many of these pilgrims wished to establish their own versions of these European models, by the grace of God, freedom won the day. Freedom of religion being the basic foundation of any authentically free society. Some have mistakenly thought to make our separation of church and state out to be freedom from religion. This is erroneous though, as Atheism and or Secular Humanism are in fact religions themsleves. Systems of belief based upon faith that there is no God.

As far as the claim that Roman Catholicism has, “not been influenced by western ideologies such as Feminism, Egalitarianism and its latest manifestation the Critical theories, DEI and Wokism”, someone simply has not been paying attention to details. Pope Francis and Roman Catholic social doctrines and teaching are eaten up with such. Via teachings such as the political establishment of the Common Good, equity above equality, the redistributive state, and the universal destination of goods. Just to mention a few.

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

stevevw said:

Yes though I think the church has generally become less like the church of Christ moving away from the cross there has always been within these splits and conflicts a genuine presense of Christ working usually in the background. There have been revivals and the interesting thing is that its always an effort to realign with what is considered the tru church, the church as it was after Christ..

The Friars and Monks of the 15th and 16th centuries for example lived like diciples, sacrificing themselves, helping the poor and needy. The Salvos rose up out of a need for helping the poor during the Industrial revolution where many came to the cities for work and ended up in slums.

I think we are overdue for another of these resets. When the church has drifted so far away from its core teachings the need for getting back to basics, to what has worked in the past, to what the teachings actually tell us will work. Which sounds simple but in a world where theres so many distractions it seems out of step and too much a commitment. But thats exactly why it works.

In a world that puts self first, sacrificing your life for another is a radical idea.

Click to expand...

There are many who had a very different view of the Friars and Monks of the 15th and 16th century you speak of above. Who also wrote a great deal about it.

Amo2 said:

There are many who had a very different view of the Friars and Monks of the 15th and 16th century you speak of above. Who also wrote a great deal about it.

Click to expand...

Yeah there was cultural baggage. But primarily the idea was to get back to the basics of how the church should be setup. Which was actually getting out among the people and helping the poor. The Salvos did similar during the industrial revolution when many came to the cities for work but ended up in poverty on the streets.

By the time of the Friars the church was entering into the reformation and rethinking how the church should be structured and what the true basis for worship. But this was also because as time went on more people questioned the church due to the evolving Enligtenment which was even disputing God altogether.

So every now and then theres an attempt to reset the church closer to how Christ intended due to the questioning and moving away from God. I thnk we now have 2000 years of weight from all these rationalisations and questioning that we have lost the true essense of Christs church as a result.

Therefore another reset is due. I have heard a lot of young men are being called due to how modern ideology has affected the church. Like the army of Christlike soldiers and leaders is rebuilding. So maybe this is a start.

stevevw said:

Yeah there was cultural baggage. But primarily the idea was to get back to the basics of how the church should be setup. Which was actually getting out among the people and helping the poor. The Salvos did similar during the industrial revolution when many came to the cities for work but ended up in poverty on the streets.

By the time of the Friars the church was entering into the reformation and rethinking how the church should be structured and what the true basis for worship. But this was also because as time went on more people questioned the church due to the evolving Enligtenment which was even disputing God altogether.

So every now and then theres an attempt to reset the church closer to how Christ intended due to the questioning and moving away from God. I thnk we now have 2000 years of weight from all these rationalisations and questioning that we have lost the true essense of Christs church as a result.

Therefore another reset is due. I have heard a lot of young men are being called due to how modern ideology has affected the church. Like the army of Christlike soldiers and leaders is rebuilding. So maybe this is a start.

Click to expand...

That depends of course upon what exactly we are resetting to, or back to.

Amo2 said:

That depends of course upon what exactly we are resetting to, or back to.

Click to expand...

Yes i agree, it depends on was teaching and lved example the church uses. I would hops that we have learnt from history and when we fail we usually go back to the original and the best. I think all revivals or awakenings try to get back to what was the true teachings for Christs church.

I think the first step is acknowledging there is Christs church and it can be known as Christ would not leave His church in such a undermining situation.

If there is any church that is Christs church I think its the one from Christ to around 150AD. Then after that we see the rise of heresay and alternative philosophies. Thats when competing beliefs and worship is making it hard to see the trees through the forrest. But still there is a core or Christ church that survives throughout history.

So we can look at the teachings of Paul especially and one of those is that tghe overseer/bishop should be above reproach and qualifications that should make them Christlike. So one failure is qualifying the bishops. It starts at the top. If you go through those qualifications as well as all the other teachings about order in the church, unity, dealing with heresay ect we begin to see what Christ church should look like.

Then we have the disciples of the disciples. Like Timothy, Titus, Barnabas, Clement and Igantius of Antioch who are the overseer bishops who are taking over the disciples in leading the church. This is important as we can actually begin to see how the church was setup and what it believed and how they applied Pauls teachings.

So if we follow the teachings and template we will get close. This also includes the breaking of the bread which was part of the last support. This was central and part of configuring worship to Christ to keep the church or rather keep Christ as central to the church. His sacrifice that we may sacrfice ourselves in return like Him.

stevevw said:

Yes i agree, it depends on was teaching and lved example the church uses. I would hops that we have learnt from history and when we fail we usually go back to the original and the best. I think all revivals or awakenings try to get back to what was the true teachings for Christs church.

I think the first step is acknowledging there is Christs church and it can be known as Christ would not leave His church in such a undermining situation.

If there is any church that is Christs church I think its the one from Christ to around 150AD. Then after that we see the rise of heresay and alternative philosophies. Thats when competing beliefs and worship is making it hard to see the trees through the forrest. But still there is a core or Christ church that survives throughout history.

So we can look at the teachings of Paul especially and one of those is that tghe overseer/bishop should be above reproach and qualifications that should make them Christlike. So one failure is qualifying the bishops. It starts at the top. If you go through those qualifications as well as all the other teachings about order in the church, unity, dealing with heresay ect we begin to see what Christ church should look like.

Then we have the disciples of the disciples. Like Timothy, Titus, Barnabas, Clement and Igantius of Antioch who are the overseer bishops who are taking over the disciples in leading the church. This is important as we can actually begin to see how the church was setup and what it believed and how they applied Pauls teachings.

So if we follow the teachings and template we will get close. This also includes the breaking of the bread which was part of the last support. This was central and part of configuring worship to Christ to keep the church or rather keep Christ as central to the church. His sacrifice that we may sacrfice ourselves in return like Him.

Click to expand...

Indeed, unfortunately many churches do not regard the Eucharistic breaking of bread as important. This despite all ancient Christian texts on worship including 1 Corinthians, the Didache, St. Justin Martyr etc pointing to its centrality.

The Liturgist said:

Indeed, unfortunately many churches do not regard the Eucharistic breaking of bread as important. This despite all ancient Christian texts on worship including 1 Corinthians, the Didache, St. Justin Martyr etc pointing to its centrality.

Click to expand...

I can imagine the early church meeting in back streets in house churches with the disciples and a growing number of Christians breaking the bread.

This is basically a meal that was shared but a special meal that brought Christ into their midst in spirit as they were doing exactly what Christ had said to do to remember Him. It is such an obvious and significant aspect but some forget and relegate it as an outdated ritual.

I think another important part of this was that each member had to make themselves right before God in particpating. This was I think part of the sacrificing of self to God in Christ in that we put all our sins on the alter and give ourselves in Christ.

I think this relates to Romans 15-16
He gave me the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

And the prophesy that the Gentiles would be offered as a pure sacrifice at the alter through Christs sacrifice.

Malachi 1:11
My name will be great among the nations, from where the sun rises to where it sets. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to me, because my name will be great among the nations,” says the LORD Almighty.

JohnB445 said:

I'm learning about Christian history, specifically the Protestant/Catholic wars 1500's and 1600's and even the persecution of Protestants by other Protestants.

People came aboard the Mayflower for religious freedom, with them were what we would call today Baptists, Anabaptists, and others. Learning about the Puritans as well.

Is all this Christian History learning good or bad? Should I focus more on the Bible? I'm also learning other history perspectives such as Catholic Persecution by Protestants in America as well.

Click to expand...

Yes focus on your relationship with God through Christ

In response to OP's original question, all of those matters were instigated by the world.

I think we can see after Christ the disciples were scared and disheartened as their Master was gone. Christ was teaching them but the full implications of that were not realised until after Penticost.

Then we see different disciples bold and like Christ willing to die for Him. This ignited the church and especially when opened to the Gentiles we see Christianity growing quickly and many attracted to what was happening in the church.

Then we see this long slow moving away from this initially presense of Christ that was captured in the early church before the true message was subverted. Once that was allowed though there was always Christs church lingering usually quietly in the background. The church has never been the same.

The Medievil time was still a time where the western world at least lived under God and the bible. There were always Christlike teachers and leaders. But they were overwhelmed by the machine that the church had become unbtil this day once they got in bed with the world powers and pricipalities.

So generally I think there was this initially Christlike church due to the closeness of the actual events. Then as we move away from this like many things its begins to be forgotten and then its questioned whether it is the truth and the challenges come.

This coincided wat the same time with the rise of the secular State. Which today has replaced the church. Now its the other way around where the State is the dominant power and dictator of peoples norms and worldview.

So we have just about had a complete flip on how it was for most of our history and especially the early church. Which to me seems to mean we are entering once again a time when the church was the minority and persecuted by the surroounding pagan world.