Church History

Katmando · Mar 18, 2004

This was originally posted in a thread "Are you in Christ"

rogerborn said:
Fideist

Yes and no. The American churches of Christ have been around since Thomas and Alexander Campbell in the early 1800's Barton W. Stone began a similar movement around that same era. The two groups met and found they were the same, and joined together about 1824.

The idea of a church of Christ is the restoration of the first century church, minus all the trappings and traditions of the Roman church and its offspring denominations (in the 1600's). Their motto was "Leave your denominations and be just Christians."

Most of this fast growing movement was in the Eastern states, but it flourished more in places like Kentucky (my home state) and Arkansas. As our nation grew, the churches of Christ moved with them, spreading into the Midwest and Texas.

By the time of the Civil War in the 1860's these churches divided between North and South, much the same as the Baptists, Methodists, and all the others divided.

Their division, however, was predicated outwardly on the use of the piano in the worship, which many of the Southern congregations began to employ. Those in the North tended to be against such things, insisting that pianos were not used in the New Testament church worship. Although these dividing lines were not strictly North and South, since in the churches of Christ there is no central headquarters and each congregation is autonomous.

These two group's final split came about the turn of the century, and they have largely remained apart since then.

However, there is a larger difference here between them. The Campbell's looked at the New Testament as a Christian Constitution, complete with Articles and Ordinances. Such a view, being that the Campbells were new to America, and in love with our freedoms, can be excused of them. Besides that, they created the churches of Christ along the congregational model of churches, complete with their buildings and pews, and their songs and traditions. They knew no other church model to follow.

But perhaps you can see that making a church follow the NT as a constitution is not exactly in keeping with the New Testament. There were no constitutions in the first century. This impossed idea, filtering the Word of God through the concept of a constitution, was the seed of their great division. Their charge to the churches was: "Speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent." To their minds, they saw a complete pattern in the New Testament, and they required that everyone should follow that pattern, so that everyone would be alike and there would be no divisions in all the churches.

It was a great idea, but it did not work. Every congregation, reading the New Testament, came up with essentially the same pattern for worship and leadership, but they never agreed with other congregations concerning minor matters. This led to eternal divisions, church splits, spiritual divorcements, - on and on, even to this day.

People, in their zeal to do right, and to maintain the perfect pattern, divided over how many cups to use in the Communion, whether to have Sunday Schools, orphanages, Christian colleges, paid preachers, kitchens and fellowship halls in the buildings, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

Obviously there was a flaw in their perception of the Bible. The churches of Christ, coming out of that division, have grown, but not as well as their divorced brethren, the Christian churches. These churches hold that the Word of God should be kept (speak where the Bible speaks), but they denied the idea that whatever is not mentioned in the NT is prohibited (be silent where the Bible is silent). As a result the Christian church congregations membership numbers in the thousands in some places, while the churches of Christ today are in decline everywhere but in Texas and the Bible belt. More than that, the majority of my beloved brothers are becoming ever more legalistic, as they continue to hold to the idea of a pattern for the Church. (The pattern in the Bible is Christ himself - not a set of rules)

Guess I should stop now, before I write a book! - Sorry.

I grew up in the concervative churches of Christ, but I continue to fellowship every believer in Christ, (as some churches of Christ are also doing, as they continue to restore New Testament Christianity, based on Love).

The difference with me is, I will lovingly tell you up front that you should leave your denomination and be just a Christian. And if you are willing to do that, you should also call on the Name of the Lord, and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins. If you have already done this, that is wonderful!!! If not, you are likely in a denomination that practices Finneyism. Finney is the guy who wrote the Sinner's Prayer in the 1840's. He is also the one who threw baptism and communion out of the church. Not a nice fellow, but very popular - many American denominations follow his teachings today - something the church everywhere, in every century, and in every land does not.

Thanks for you kind response to my introduction. I will TRY very HARD not to be so wordy next time!

Love,
Roger

I have a few questions.

Does your interest in Church History start with the restoration movement or all the way to the beginning?

The church started with Peter. Correct? Did the church lose some thing that it needed to be restored? And if so what was that they lost?

Also if the church did need to be restored there was some thing that was still there that needed to be restored. What was still there? (Hope that makes since)

Do you know where does Martin Luther fits in to all this? And what influence if any did he have on the restoration movement?

Thank you <><

rogerborn · Mar 18, 2004

Bill

My interest in church history goes all the way back to the beginning. The first church in the first few centuries was something quite different in many respects from what is seen today. First of all, (IMO - I am still researching this) they met in homes of their leaders, but they considered themselves one body in whatever city they were in. My initial impression of the early church is that they met in secret in many places, because of the continuing persecutions by the Roman government, and by every other religion, including the Jews. But none of this could stem their growth, for they overwhelmed the Roman Republic and all the religons of the Roman and Greek gods.

All this changed, historically, in the fourth century, when the church was allowed to publicly meet for the first time. By then, powerful men, Elders who became the Bishop over a whole city or a nation, changed the simple, primatve church. They removed the freedoms that Christians enjoyed, replacing them with a Liturgy, Priests and and Altar, modeled on the government of Rome, and upon the Jewish temple model of worship in the first church buildings ever built.

By the twelfth century this Orthodox church became the Catholic church, largely in their councils where the veneration of Mary, and of the Saints was established, and at the same time the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, employed in the Mass (funeral) for Christ. The Papacy was also becoming a political power in Europe during these early centuries, and not surprizingly, some of its earliest history was re-written to accomodate the Papacy all the way back to Peter. Its power in the known world was solidified when they discovered the bones of Peter in Rome,and built their church building over it.

Not until the Renaissance, when the knowlege of Man began to escalate, did people succeed in breaking from the Roman church. Luther, Calvin and a host of others created the Reformation, which was largely copies of the Roman church model, but with important differences. Men were told to search the Scriptures - something they had never been allowed to do (the Roman church being the keeper and protector of Scripture).

As you know from history, a thousand denominations were established, most of which were short lived. Then a few of them spread to the New World . . .

In all of this, men were tearing down the superstructure of Traditions and Dogma that had encrusted the early church for a thousand years. Yet mostly they substituted their own Tradions and Ordinances in its place.

It was left to an independent movement called the Huguenots in France to be the first to attempt to restore the early church in their worship and church government. They were followed by the Haldanes, and later the Sandemans, - of which Thomas Campbell was affiliated. Campbell was one of the founders of the American Restoration Movement.

(I see I am writing yet another book here!)

Martin Luther was a great pioneer and fearless Reformer - a former and very devout Monk in the Roman church, he took his Bible reading extrememly seriously! He began the Reformation movement (one that was started a century earlier by John Hus, who was executed by the Roman church for heresies.)

He modeled his church closely after the Roman one - which was all he knew. But men everywhere in Europe looked to him and others in the Reformation to lead them to religious freedom. It was also at this time that the Bible began to be printed everywhere. It was illegal to do so, upon pain of death for whoever had one in their possession, but the neither the Roman church, nor any government could stop this movement, which laid the foundations for our own Republic, where religious tolerance is the norm. No other age or nation in history has ever seen this before.

Now I am sure I have given here enough controversy and questionable points to have me burned at the stake! But if anyone is interested, there is much more here to see. I am mainly interested in talking about the very first church which the Lord himself created, and for which he died.

Love,
Roger

de Unamuno · Mar 18, 2004

Where did you learn about church history?

rogerborn · Mar 19, 2004

de Unamuno

From Bear Valley School of Preaching in Denver, way back in 1970, when I was given my diploma and a charge to preach the Gospel. I completed my MA in congregational leadership and early church history at Hope University in Fullerton California five years ago. I also studied orthodoxy and medieval church history under Dr. Samuel Scheibler, the West Coast Anglican Bishop, and a host of others, from teachers and professors at Pepperdine University, (Jerry Rushford, for one) and a great number of friends and associates through correspondence.

However, you should be aware, that I also study and teach Critical Thought, I have not always been in agreement with my professors, no matter how beloved they were to me. They understand this about me, but I am probably seen as somewhat of a troublemaker by many. - Which is a moniker I accept. People should be charged to think about what they are doing, instead of thoughtlessly following anyone in matters concerning the Christ. And that is not a popular endeavor, as you might imagine.

Love,
Roger

thereselittleflower · Mar 19, 2004

rogerborn said:
Bill

My interest in church history goes all the way back to the beginning. The first church in the first few centuries was something quite different in many respects from what is seen today. First of all, (IMO - I am still researching this) they met in homes of their leaders, but they considered themselves one body in whatever city they were in. My initial impression of the early church is that they met in secret in many places, because of the continuing persecutions by the Roman government, and by every other religion, including the Jews. But none of this could stem their growth, for they overwhelmed the Roman Republic and all the religons of the Roman and Greek gods.

All this changed, historically, in the fourth century, when the church was allowed to publicly meet for the first time. By then, powerful men, Elders who became the Bishop over a whole city or a nation, changed the simple, primatve church. They removed the freedoms that Christians enjoyed, replacing them with a Liturgy, Priests and and Altar, modeled on the government of Rome, and upon the Jewish temple model of worship in the first church buildings ever built.

By the twelfth century this Orthodox church became the Catholic church, largely in their councils where the veneration of Mary, and of the Saints was established, and at the same time the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, employed in the Mass (funeral) for Christ. The Papacy was also becoming a political power in Europe during these early centuries, and not surprizingly, some of its earliest history was re-written to accomodate the Papacy all the way back to Peter. Its power in the known world was solidified when they discovered the bones of Peter in Rome,and built their church building over it.

Not until the Renaissance, when the knowlege of Man began to escalate, did people succeed in breaking from the Roman church. Luther, Calvin and a host of others created the Reformation, which was largely copies of the Roman church model, but with important differences. Men were told to search the Scriptures - something they had never been allowed to do (the Roman church being the keeper and protector of Scripture).

As you know from history, a thousand denominations were established, most of which were short lived. Then a few of them spread to the New World . . .

In all of this, men were tearing down the superstructure of Traditions and Dogma that had encrusted the early church for a thousand years. Yet mostly they substituted their own Tradions and Ordinances in its place.

It was left to an independent movement called the Huguenots in France to be the first to attempt to restore the early church in their worship and church government. They were followed by the Haldanes, and later the Sandemans, - of which Thomas Campbell was affiliated. Campbell was one of the founders of the American Restoration Movement.

(I see I am writing yet another book here!)

Martin Luther was a great pioneer and fearless Reformer - a former and very devout Monk in the Roman church, he took his Bible reading extrememly seriously! He began the Reformation movement (one that was started a century earlier by John Hus, who was executed by the Roman church for heresies.)

He modeled his church closely after the Roman one - which was all he knew. But men everywhere in Europe looked to him and others in the Reformation to lead them to religious freedom. It was also at this time that the Bible began to be printed everywhere. It was illegal to do so, upon pain of death for whoever had one in their possession, but the neither the Roman church, nor any government could stop this movement, which laid the foundations for our own Republic, where religious tolerance is the norm. No other age or nation in history has ever seen this before.

Now I am sure I have given here enough controversy and questionable points to have me burned at the stake! But if anyone is interested, there is much more here to see. I am mainly interested in talking about the very first church which the Lord himself created, and for which he died.

Love,
Roger

Hi Roger

If you were giving a book review, then I have to say that the book you reviewd has given a very popularized rendition of Church history, espeically of Luther and the Reformation. It is very biased in favor of Luther and paints him other than he actually was.

It was in discovering who Luther really was, what he really did, what he really wrote, what he really was responsible for, that I realized I had been duped by the popular rendition of Reformation history.

I began my search for the turth by going back to the Early Church from the first century on.

What I found from the time I started this journey over 3 years ago till now is the reason I am comoing into the Catholic Church this Easter.

There are many misrepresentations of the truth in your post above . . . .

Peace in Him!

thereselittleflower · Mar 19, 2004

rogerborn said:
de Unamuno

From Bear Valley School of Preaching in Denver, way back in 1970, when I was given my diploma and a charge to preach the Gospel. I completed my MA in congregational leadership and early church history at Hope University in Fullerton California five years ago. I also studied orthodoxy and medieval church history under Dr. Samuel Scheibler, the West Coast Anglican Bishop, and a host of others, from teachers and professors at Pepperdine University, (Jerry Rushford, for one) and a great number of friends and associates through correspondence.

However, you should be aware, that I also study and teach Critical Thought, I have not always been in agreement with my professors, no matter how beloved they were to me. They understand this about me, but I am probably seen as somewhat of a troublemaker by many. - Which is a moniker I accept. People should be charged to think about what they are doing, instead of thoughtlessly following anyone in matters concerning the Christ. And that is not a popular endeavor, as you might imagine.

Love,
Roger

All I can say is that if what you wrote in your other post is what they taught you, then you were taught very poorly about Church history. What you wrote sounds like somethng straight out of Foxe's book of Martyrs . . a very biased anti-Catholic and inaccurate accounting of Church History.

Peace in Him!

Suzannah · Mar 19, 2004

Katmando said:
This was originally posted in a thread "Are you in Christ"

I have a few questions.

Does your interest in Church History start with the restoration movement or all the way to the beginning?

All the way to the beginning!

Katmando said:
The church started with Peter. Correct? Did the church lose some thing that it needed to be restored? And if so what was that they lost?

The answer depends on which version of history you believe to be the most correct. Since I am Orthodox, I say that Peter was one of the Bishops of the early church, first among equals. St. James was actually the first Bishop. Of Jerusalem. No I do not think it needed re-storing. The Holy God is capable of founding His Church and keeping it for 2000 years. I don't speculate about "branch" theory.

Katmando said:
Do you know where does Martin Luther fits in to all this? And what influence if any did he have on the restoration movement?

Thank you <><

It seems to me that Luther did want reform within the Roman Church. I won't really go there. But I do think that he might have had very meaningful dialogue with Orthodoxy if communications had been better...he in fact, did write back and forth a few times with Orthodox Patriarchs. I do think that Luther was instrumental in the "birth" of Protestantism and would even go so far as to say that he is one of the fathers of it.

rogerborn · Mar 19, 2004

I am not a fan of Luthor, actually. Nor am I a promoter of any man's ministry - especially my own.

I think it is a solid fact that any history of the church which promotes any man or any doctrine as equal to or on the same spiritual level and the Lord Jesus Christ, is a biased account of history.

Jesus is the Centerpiece of Mankind. He is central in the way we count time and how we view history. We place him, and him alone, above all others in the matter of religion, of philosophy, of critical thought, - in fact of every known human endeavor. Why? He is the Son of God, the Savior of Mankind, the First and the Last, and the Eternal Father. . . for God has determined to sum up all things in him, who has been given all power and all authority in Heaven and Earth.

(You see I am trying to steer this dialog toward Jesus, don't you?)

He is infinitely more worth our study and the spending of our time upon, than any man. All men are sinners. Every notable person in history, even church history, is fallible, and prone to error. If any of them were on this forum, and alive today, they would agree with me, having seen the Righteous One of God, in all his beauty and glory. They would tell you not to join yourselves to any man made institution, but rather bend the knee to the Lord Jesus Christ.

And as for studying him, or casting all our thoughts and imagination upon him, we have not yet touched the hem of the garment.

Love,
Roger

Oblio · Mar 19, 2004

They would tell you not to join yourselves to any man made institution, but rather bend the knee to the Lord Jesus Christ.

I am sure they would. They would tell us to join ourselves to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, instituted by Christ Himself.

Benedicta00 · Mar 19, 2004

The one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church is not a man made institution but a divine institution, why is this so terrible hard to believe? Is God not powerful enough to give us a Church and protect it for 2000 years?

Protestantism is man made 110%. There can be absolutely no denying this by any intellectually honest person. Sola Scripture and mans authority over the gospel, a divine commission, it does not make. This is purely man made religion. Not to say that they are not seeds of truth in Protestantism and that the Holy Spirit does not dewll in any person who is worthy or that God does not call someone to misintery, but the reformation sparked the era of man made religion, not the Catholic Church.

de Unamuno · Mar 19, 2004

Here are some links that might be helpful to dispell some of the Protestant rumors on this thread.

Basic history lesson.

Basic Catholic explanation and justification.

Faith of the early fathers, demonstrating traditional Catholic doctrine and teachings.

The Roman Catholic role as the primary agent for canonizing and protecting the Bible since the first letters were written down.

God bless,

rogerborn · Mar 19, 2004

So, you are saying that we must believe in Jesus as the Christ, but we also, equally, must believe that Peter was the first Pope, and that Mary never had other children or a normal married life (which must be a very sinful thing to have done, had she done so). What other dogmas must we follow as of equal importance to the Christ?

You see, hopefully, that people are adding to what is required of salvation, which is faith in Jesus Christ. This is no different than any protestant denomination, which imposes their special doctrine as equally important with the Gospel.

In every age and country where the church of our Lord has existed, but it never submitted to man, or man's dogma. His church is neither Protestant nor Roman. She is neither Anglican nor Greek Orthodox. She carries but one name upon her, which is Christ's.

This is why we say, "Leave your denominations, and be just Christians." If Jesus is all you need for salvation, and redemption is in no other Name under Heaven, why would you require anything else of the believer, in order to be saved?

Love,
Roger

Suzannah · Mar 19, 2004

rogerborn said:
So, you are saying that we must believe in Jesus as the Christ, but we also, equally, must believe that Peter was the first Pope, and that Mary never had other children or a normal married life (which must be a very sinful thing to have done, had she done so). What other dogmas must we follow as of equal importance to the Christ?

I did not say this about Peter. Mary never had other other children however, true. Your last question here makes no sense to me.

rogerborn said:
You see, hopefully, that people are adding to what is required of salvation, which is faith in Jesus Christ. This is no different than any protestant denomination, which imposes their special doctrine as equally important with the Gospel.

I don't know what to do with this.... are you saying that all the peasants of history, who followed the teachings of Catholocism or Orthodoxy are/were "unsaved" because they did more than just believe and have faith in Christ?

rogerborn said:
In every age and country where the church of our Lord has existed, but it never submitted to man, or man's dogma. His church is neither Protestant nor Roman. She is neither Anglican nor Greek Orthodox. She carries but one name upon her, which is Christ's.

Christ was not lying or waxing poetic when he said that He would build His Church and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. In my view, history is clear. He did all that and further, has kept the Church intact, unchanged, and Holy. Anything else is a pretty weak Jesus.

rogerborn said:
This is why we say, "Leave your denominations, and be just Christians." If Jesus is all you need for salvation, and redemption is in no other Name under Heaven, why would you require anything else of the believer, in order to be saved?

I did. I left my "denomination" (Baptist) and converted to the one Holy catholic and Apostolic Church whose head is Christ.

rogerborn said:
Love,
Roger

Love,
Suzannah

thereselittleflower · Mar 19, 2004

rogerborn said:
I am not a fan of Luthor, actually. Nor am I a promoter of any man's ministry - especially my own.

Roger, then why did you write this:

Martin Luther was a great pioneer and fearless Reformer

I disagree with that representation of Luther . .it holds him up on a pedastle from which he fell in my mind almost 4 years ago.

By perptuating this myth, you also perpetuate myths against the Church he supposedly he tired to "reform" . . . and these myths are not based in historical truth.

Peace in Him!

Benedicta00 · Mar 19, 2004

rogerborn said:
So, you are saying that we must believe in Jesus as the Christ, but we also, equally, must believe that Peter was the first Pope, and that Mary never had other children or a normal married life (which must be a very sinful thing to have done, had she done so). What other dogmas must we follow as of equal importance to the Christ?

You see, hopefully, that people are adding to what is required of salvation, which is faith in Jesus Christ. This is no different than any protestant denomination, which imposes their special doctrine as equally important with the Gospel.

In every age and country where the church of our Lord has existed, but it never submitted to man, or man's dogma. His church is neither Protestant nor Roman. She is neither Anglican nor Greek Orthodox. She carries but one name upon her, which is Christ's.

This is why we say, "Leave your denominations, and be just Christians." If Jesus is all you need for salvation, and redemption is in no other Name under Heaven, why would you require anything else of the believer, in order to be saved?

Love,
Roger

But where did these teachings come from? They did not come from man but from God. Tradition is Gods word. Christ taught the apostles and the apostles handed us down this faith.

We can even prove this. Faith alone was never taught until Luther taught it. You can trace faith alone to a man.

The scripture are the written down part of this word. We can trace these beliefs straight to those who learned them from Christ. Can you see now why we are not man made? These beliefs come from Gods word to taught by Christ to the apostles.

thereselittleflower · Mar 19, 2004

rogerborn said:
So, you are saying that we must believe in Jesus as the Christ, but we also, equally, must believe that Peter was the first Pope, and that Mary never had other children or a normal married life (which must be a very sinful thing to have done, had she done so).

You fail to understand the whole issue of Mary's perpetual virginity if you think she was sinful if she remained a virgin. . . Then Moses and his wife were sinful for never having sexual relations after he visited God on the mountain.

Can you, as a man, truly imagine yourself, if you were Joseph, having carnal relations with the woman who had just given birth to God?? !!

What other dogmas must we follow as of equal importance to the Christ?

The Dogmas of the Church Christ established. The Dogmas of the Church Christ promised the Holy Spirit would lead in all truth.

You believe belief in Christ is enough? Even the demons believe . .

The Creeds of the Church were set down to protect the faithful against heresy . . anyone can claim faith in Christ and yet be hereticss . . it is not enough to simply believe in Christ, one must be sure they are believing rightly in Chirst.

Some say they believe in Christ, have faith in Him, yet deny the Trinity.

Mormons say they have faith in Chirst, yet the do not embrace the Christian faith. Where do you draw the line?

What about Baptism? Some believe it is necessary for salvation, some don't, some think it should not be done . .

Belief, faith in Christ means to believe ALL and submit to ALL He has commanded us. That includes His promise that the Holy Spirit would lead the Apostles and thier successors into all truth. He stated that there were many things He wanted to tell them but they were not ready for them at that point, and that the Holy Spirit, when He came, would lead them, His apostles, into all truth.

Roger, what is the pillar and foundation of the Truth?

The Church!

(1Ti 3:15)But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground (foundation) of the truth.

And as the vehicle of that truth, the pillar and foundation of that truth, the Church is to be submitted to.

We believe exactly that.

The Church is not "invisible" it is a "City set high on a hill" It is VERY visible.

You see, hopefully, that people are adding to what is required of salvation, which is faith in Jesus Christ. This is no different than any protestant denomination, which imposes their special doctrine as equally important with the Gospel.

You see, that no, the Church has not added to, but others have taken away from the fullness of truth.

[

In every age and country where the church of our Lord has existed, but it never submitted to man, or man's dogma.

No, it has submitted to God and God's dogma's proclaimed by the Church.

His church is neither Protestant nor Roman. She is neither Anglican nor Greek Orthodox. She carries but one name upon her, which is Christ's.

"I believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church"

Do you agree with that statement? You are required to, to be able to post in this forum . .

This is why we say, "Leave your denominations, and be just Christians." If Jesus is all you need for salvation, and redemption is in no other Name under Heaven, why would you require anything else of the believer, in order to be saved?

To follow Jesus means to be submitted to His authority . . do you realize that He passed on His authority to a human being? Peter?

Do you realize that Jesus gave the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter and to Peter alone?

Do you relaize what the phrase "Keys of the Kingdom of heaven" means?

The Keys of the Kingdom refer to the full authority and power of the King given to his regent, his Prime Minister to rule in his absence . . For someone to be fully submitted to the King, they had to also sumbit to the one who ruled in the Kings place.

What do you think the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven, given to Peter and to Peter alone signify?

Can you truly be submitted to Christ if you are not submitted to His Regent, His Prime Minister?

Peace in Him!

Suzannah · Mar 19, 2004

Roger,
I hope you're busy typing a response because really since you're new here, we'd love to hear it...

Symes · Mar 19, 2004

The one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church is not a man made institution but a divine institution, why is this so terrible hard to believe? Is God not powerful enough to give us a Church and protect it for 2000 years?

Protestantism is man made 110%. There can be absolutely no denying this by any intellectually honest person. Sola Scripture and mans authority over the gospel, a divine commission, it does not make. This is purely man made religion. Not to say that they are not seeds of truth in Protestantism and that the Holy Spirit does not dewll in any person who is worthy or that God does not call someone to misintery, but the reformation sparked the era of man made religion, not the Catholic Church.

Shelb5

You have made some very strong statements in your post.

Now being a Protestant, I am sure that what you claim cannot be supported.

Take the claim here that "Protestantism is man made 110%."

Show me how that is right?

Here is another claim.

" This is purely man made religion."

When the Bible and the Bible only is used how is it "man made"?

Symes · Mar 19, 2004

Can you truly be submitted to Christ if you are not submitted to His Regent, His Prime Minister?

thereselittleflower

Who is this now?

Suzannah · Mar 19, 2004

Symes said:
Shelb5

You have made some very strong statements in your post.

Now being a Protestant, I am sure that what you claim cannot be supported.

Take the claim here that "Protestantism is man made 110%."

Show me how that is right?

Here is another claim.

" This is purely man made religion."

When the Bible and the Bible only is used how is it "man made"?

Shelb5 is perfectly capable of answering this for herself since you directed it to her. However I would like to offer you my perspective:

Protestantism and its teaching were unknown to Christendom prior to Luther. "Faith alone" , sola scriptura: these things among others were simply never heard of, never taught until Luther and Calvin. The Christian world, prior to the "Protestant Reformation" was Orthodox and Roman Catholic. Therefore, these doctrines were "man made" in the sense that suddenly there was "new revelation". I'll stop there and let you think about that. Doctrinal development is a whole thread by itself.

Church History

Regular Member

Member

Active Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

A sinner

Member

Creed or Chaos

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Member

A sinner

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

A sinner

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

A sinner

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency