A middle ages question.

[Xeno.of.athens]

Don't get me wrong. I just think you have to be realistic. The Reformation hasn't turned out the way the Reformers hoped.

Their hope was misbegotten; it could never turn out the way they imagined because unlike the angels in heaven human beings on earth are not good at submission.

 

[bling]

Having a bible is part of the problem, the bible needs to be interpreted and leaving that task to individuals to do for themselves leads to aberrations in faith.

I have many contacts in Communist China, including two daughters-in-law who are Chinese with relatives still back in China. Before the bamboo curtain went up there was estimated to be about 2 million Christians in China, but the Communist went through sending all the Christian Chinese leadership for reeducation, all churches were closed and foreign missionaries were kicked out. The Communists liked the moral, ethical, obedience, servitude message of the Bible, so they eventually had 90 million printed up and sold for just a fraction of the cost at registered Christian Churches but did not allow any other Christian religious books (except, they did allow the Catholic Catechism book, but few sold). Up until a few years ago they could buy Bibles online, but not commentaries.
Prior to the bamboo curtain coming down it was though Christianity was dead in China, but instead it had grown to an estimated 75 million unregistered Christians and thought to be as large as 175 million meeting in homes each Sunday these days, yet there is strong persecution.
I know, what some Chinese Christians teach from different places in China and it is a miracle to realize, they are all teaching the same doctrine without any cross communication, religious books other than the Bible, but we can thank to the Communist Government for that. The Communist made public a long list of what could not be taught in the registered Christian Churches which included: Christ is the son of God, Christ died for our sins, Christ rose from the dead, adult believer emersion water baptism, and so on. Since these unregistered Churches could not keep from breaking the law, they broke all the law, teaching all the doctrine not allowed and that makes them all alike.

 

[Hawkins]

An analogy to the question is, is it Biden or Trump actually won the election?

In this process, the front-end vote counters act as the eyewitnesses. Their "testimonies" then reach an authority (as designated by the US government) then are handed over to the media for the public to reach such a truth. The public rely on their trusted media to reach such a truth. The republican media said that Trump won, while the democrat media said that Biden won. It says the republican media doesn't convey democrat "truth" and vice versa. The media itself must be at least US-facing, as such a truth aims on being received by at least all US citizens.

In a similar fashion, God's truth is witnessed by the prophets and apostles acting as eyewitnesses. It is supposed to reach an authority (which is Isael, the Jews) then handed over to God's chosen media which is Judaism (enforced by the Pharisees back then). However, the Jews and Judaism failed to function. As a result, truth has been passed to Christianity with our Church as the authority and Christianity as God's newly chosen media. Such a media has also been made to be human-facing with the explicit command that the gospel (God's news) must be preached (i.e., broadcast) to all nations, with the aim on reaching each and every humankind.

Church as the designated authority ensures the accuracy of the information or translations. Ultimately it's enforced by God to facilate the Final Judgment. It is from the best effort of humankind in terms of how a testimony is made. It is maintained by God through the Church. The public don't need to understand every single bit of information of what the Bible said. They only need to receive the simple message of salvation, which is to believe in Jesus. They can dive deeper though, through our Church and guided by God the Holy Spirit. It all boils down to how one is guided by the Holy Spirit to reckon a physical church upholding a clear salvation message.

 

[FireDragon76]

Their hope was misbegotten; it could never turn out the way they imagined because unlike the angels in heaven human beings on earth are not good at submission.

I don't think that is quite how I'd put it. The individualism of their era predisposed them to over-estimate their capacity to know truth. They also were not as informed as we are today about the nature of the Bible. Their biblical scholarship was very primitive. They were simply not capable of deconstructing 1500 years of Church tradition.

Maybe it will all work out in the end, but I very much doubt looking back to the past for all the answers to today's spiritual problems is correctly discerning the signs of the times.

 

[Hawkins]

I have many contacts in Communist China, including two daughters-in-law who are Chinese with relatives still back in China. Before the bamboo curtain went up there was estimated to be about 2 million Christians in China, but the Communist went through sending all the Christian Chinese leadership for reeducation, all churches were closed and foreign missionaries were kicked out. The Communists liked the moral, ethical, obedience, servitude message of the Bible, so they eventually had 90 million printed up and sold for just a fraction of the cost at registered Christian Churches but did not allow any other Christian religious books (except, they did allow the Catholic Catechism book, but few sold). Up until a few years ago they could buy Bibles online, but not commentaries.
Prior to the bamboo curtain coming down it was though Christianity was dead in China, but instead it had grown to an estimated 75 million unregistered Christians and thought to be as large as 175 million meeting in homes each Sunday these days, yet there is strong persecution.
I know, what some Chinese Christians teach from different places in China and it is a miracle to realize, they are all teaching the same doctrine without any cross communication, religious books other than the Bible, but we can thank to the Communist Government for that. The Communist made public a long list of what could not be taught in the registered Christian Churches which included: Christ is the son of God, Christ died for our sins, Christ rose from the dead, adult believer emersion water baptism, and so on. Since these unregistered Churches could not keep from breaking the law, they broke all the law, teaching all the doctrine not allowed and that makes them all alike.

The question is rather, why the heck Chinese people (most of them) are for overthrowing their previoius ruler who and his wife are both claimed Christians? At one point, they are all for communism which simultaneously means China will have zero tolerance of religions. It remained people's choice.

In the 100 years before the ruling of communists, the death toll due to or led to by civil unrests and revolutions reached 100 million. Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, which is a rebellion disguised in the name of Christ, alone is responisble for the death of 70 million human lives. It doesn't stop there. Communist revolution is responsible for another serveral tens of million of death. There are more if taking into account the Japan invasion resulted by a weak China due to the series of civil unrests and civil wars.

It is said that the United Kingdom ever had 60 empirors in history but with only 1 civil war. However the Chinese have on average 20 civil wars per empiror. They overthrew their Christian president with a country of freedom of religion to establish a nation of communism, with rebelliousness. Who to blame? Any responsible government shall take rebellion into serioius control including the strict control of religions perhaps for the sake that not another 30 million human lives to be lost, as a typical death toll for a bloody revolution.

God once gave them a Christian nation, and they turned it into a communist country. That's what happened.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I don't think that is quite how I'd put it. The individualism of their era predisposed them to over-estimate their capacity to know truth. They also were not as informed as we are today about the nature of the Bible. Their biblical scholarship was very primitive.

It's ironic... I actually agree with Luther's objections to Erasmus's arguments for the time, but I think in today's world we could do with more Erasmus and less Luther.

Interesting comment about Erasmus, it appeared when I tapped the "reply" link, so I got to your post before you'd finished editing it, my apologies. My intended reply was (and still is) this:

While I agree that individualism and lack of important information led to an over estimate of their abilities with respect to discerning truth, I need to say that it was not truth alone that escaped their accurate apprehension. Submission also escaped it. Luther, and at least some among the other contemporaries who became founders of new faith movements, willingly submitted to what they perceived as God speaking in the scriptures they nevertheless did not submit to the Catholic Church's magisterium. Instead they instituted their own magisterium and later lamented how the new generations who arose after they had started the faith movements rejected the reformers magisterium and establish a new magisterium of their own. This is how submission was neglected. Human nature left to freely interpret the bible and choose what it "really means" will inevitably land on multiplicity of magisterial authorities, as long as submission is not accepted as the only way to preserve unity of some kind. ​

 

[FireDragon76]

Interesting comment about Erasmus, it appeared when I tapped the "reply" link, so I got to your post before you'd finished editing it, my apologies. My intended reply was (and still is) this:

While I agree that individualism and lack of important information led to an over estimate of their abilities with respect to discerning truth, I need to say that it was not truth alone that escaped their accurate apprehension. Submission also escaped it. Luther, and at least some among the other contemporaries who became founders of new faith movements, willingly submitted to what they perceived as God speaking in the scriptures they nevertheless did not submit to the Catholic Church's magisterium. Instead they instituted their own magisterium and later lamented how the new generations who arose after they had started the faith movements rejected the reformers magisterium and establish a new magisterium of their own. This is how submission was neglected. Human nature left to freely interpret the bible and choose what it "really means" will inevitably land on multiplicity of magisterial authorities, as long as submission is not accepted as the only way to preserve unity of some kind. ​

I think Luther interpreted his life as being somewhat prophetic, that is how Lutherans understand him. I think it's possible to see Luther as a kind of judgement on the edifice of Christendom.

Regardless, I don't see myself becoming a Roman Catholic, for all sorts of reasons. I don't see history through that kind of romantic lens. The medieval church was rotten, far too top-heavy and authoritarian for its own good (not to mention, built upon mostly what turns out to be sand), and Biblicism hasn't really produced a holy, godly society ever, but I think we can discern new ways to hear God's voice in today's world.

 

[eleos1954]

Before there were newspapers and institutional people who we trust to vet information to certify it is true or at least thought to be true by those we hold in high regard, there was an individual responsibility to vet information for himself or for his family (if he was head of the household). Now we have just reached the tail end of the age of newspapers and trusted institutions and what are we to do? Shall we return to the middle ages approach?

In conjunction with this is the role of the Church because middle ages people trusted the church (in varying degrees) to vet information for its safety and truth whenever it dealt with matters of eternal life. Who do we trust now? Just ourselves? Or are there some institutions we trust and if so which organisations do we trust and are they really trustworthy?

What of the scriptures? We, as Christians, acknowledge them as the inspired oracles of God and as such as trustworthy but we must admit to ourselves that holy scripture is difficult to interpret at times, and even those passages that seem easy to interpret may contain allusions to past revelation and revelatory events or even to cultural "memes" that a modern reader doesn't understand or know. So despite the trust we invest in the scriptures we are left with a task of interpretation that is inherently complex, who do we trust to help us with the work of interpreting the holy scriptures? We might appeal to the Holy Spirit, and that is excellent, yet how can we know what he is saying or if it is he who is saying it? Many men and women have claimed the Holy Spirit told them such and such, are we obliged to believe them, and if not shall we be as sceptical of our own "leadings from the Holy Spirit"?

Who can we trust, if anyone?

We can't trust anyone ... but Jesus. Certainly there are different interpretations of some scripture.

However .... we know according to the teachings of Jesus .... this world is lost .... and living in it will become more difficult as time goes on.
Even knowing this we are called to live differently (according to the precepts taught by Jesus) .... also to get the good news out about Jesus so that as many as possible can prepare for His return.

Any "leadings" from the Holy Spirit will not compromise/contradict the teachings of Jesus .... so it is important to study and understand what those are. Each of us has the responsibility to study scripture.

 

[bling]

The question is rather, why the heck Chinese people (most of them) are for overthrowing their previoius ruler who and his wife are both claimed Christians? At one point, they are all for communism which simultaneously means China will have zero tolerance of religions. It remained people's choice.

In the 100 years before the ruling of communists, the death toll due to or led to by civil unrests and revolutions reached 100 million. Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, which is a rebellion disguised in the name of Christ, alone is responisble for the death of 70 million human lives. It doesn't stop there. Communist revolution is responsible for another serveral tens of million of death. There are more if taking into account the Japan invasion resulted by a weak China due to the series of civil unrests and civil wars.

It is said that the United Kingdom ever had 60 empirors in history but with only 1 civil war. However the Chinese have on average 20 civil wars per empiror. They overthrew their Christian president with a country of freedom of religion to establish a nation of communism, with rebelliousness. Who to blame? Any responsible government shall take rebellion into serioius control including the strict control of religions perhaps for the sake that not another 30 million human lives to be lost, as a typical death toll for a bloody revolution.

God once gave them a Christian nation, and they turned it into a communist country. That's what happened.

Similar things have happened throughout history, with many bloody rebellions happening in the name of Christ. Christianity is growing the fastest in Iran right now.
The Christians in China are not trying to overthrow the government, but work underground to make disciples, which seems to work better under severe persecution. A "Christian" ruler does not make a Christian nation.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I think Luther interpreted his life as being somewhat prophetic, that is how Lutherans understand him. I think it's possible to see Luther as a kind of judgement on the edifice of Christendom.

Regardless, I don't see myself becoming a Roman Catholic, for all sorts of reasons. I don't see history through that kind of romantic lens. The medieval church was rotten, far too top-heavy and authoritarian for its own good (not to mention, built upon mostly what turns out to be sand), and Biblicism hasn't really produced a holy, godly society ever, but I think we can discern new ways to hear God's voice in today's world.

The middle ages Catholic Church did indeed have a great deal of "cruft" attached to it; it came from the exercise of secular power, wealth, and all the things that have always tended to corrupt people and institutional leadership of every kind. And it is without doubt true that God intended the upheaval of 16th century and following centuries to shake the cruft and as we can see from how matters transpired that a great deal of the cruft was dislodged. But we are alive in the twenty first century and the memory of things past ought not distort our vision of things present.

 

[FireDragon76]

The middle ages Catholic Church did indeed have a great deal of "cruft" attached to it; it came from the exercise of secular power, wealth, and all the things that have always tended to corrupt people and institutional leadership of every kind. And it is without doubt true that God intended the upheaval of 16th century and following centuries to shake the cruft and as we can see from how matters transpired that a great deal of the cruft was dislodged. But we are alive in the twenty first century and the memory of things past ought not distort our vision of things present.

I agree. That's why I'm more than happy to accept Roman Catholics as Christians. However, I think there are limits to what is realistic or even desirable in terms of institutional unity between our churches.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I agree. That's why I'm more than happy to accept Roman Catholics as Christians. However, I think there are limits to what is realistic or even desirable in terms of institutional unity between our churches.

Perhaps prayer for better unity is needed; if we desire it and if it is God's will, then let us be in conformity with God's intent.

 

[FireDragon76]

Perhaps prayer for better unity is needed; if we desire it and if it is God's will, then let us be in conformity with God's intent.

We already have unity in the sacraments: Baptism and the Lord's Supper. I know Catholics don't see it that way, of course, but we do.

At my church we do not pray for unity per se, but the pastor does acknowledge in our prayers that people from all around the world are praying together.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

We already have unity in the sacraments: Baptism and the Lord's Supper. I know Catholics don't see it that way, of course, but we do.

At my church we do not pray for unity per se, but the pastor does acknowledge in our prayers that people from all around the world are praying together.

Does your denomination have a closed table of the Lord?

 

[FireDragon76]

Does your denomination have a closed table of the Lord?

Each congregation decides who is admitted. Our congregation doesn't fence the table, and that is common in the denomination. Anybody who is desires to receive the sacrament may do so.

This Sunday we are having a joint service with an independent catholic group that rents space at our church.

 

[timothyu]

Having a bible is part of the problem, the bible needs to be interpreted and leaving that task to individuals to do for themselves leads to aberrations in faith.

At least God allows choice

 

[bling]

Perhaps prayer for better unity is needed; if we desire it and if it is God's will, then let us be in conformity with God's intent.

Would severe persecution help unit all Christians? You are left with what you are willing to die for, which may not be what is dividing us.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Would severe persecution help unit all Christians? You are left with what you are willing to die for, which may not be what is dividing us.

Persecution may come, and it may divide the faithful from those who are not so faithful. It is not certain what would happen.

 

[timothyu]

It is not certain what would happen.

Exactly. Humans are not known for their shunning of human politics in favour of an outside counter-culture. Even institutional Christianity shunned the Kingdom to harlot itself to the Roman Empire.

 

[Fervent]

I don't think we can separate the task of interpreting Scripture from the task of vetting information in general, which means ultimately we must establish what sources to trust on our own. When it comes to the Scripture, this means we must be diligent to read it for ourselves, remove any anachronistic thinking, but also be open to novel insights. Tradition has to play a role, but a magisterium inevitably places an additional authority above both tradition and Scripture by treating them as separate authorities rather than witnesses to one another. We also cannot neglect modern scholarship, but this too must be in a restricted form since we do not want to make natural sciences and naturalist accounts of history an authority over the Scripture. When we go before the judge, we will each have to give our own account and that ultimately will come down to how much we submitted to the voice of God in our lives. So we must trust that the proper authorities in our life will be made clear to us by God Himself and never look for someone else to fulfill the things we are obligated to. At the very least, the difficulties should produce in us a humility that allows us to recognize and understand why people won't always agree with even our strongest theological opinions.