Church History

[Rhamiel]

Good stuff. I also really liked Diarmaid MacCulloch's Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years.

As for a chart, may I recommend:

That's a pretty good chart showing the major branches. Denominations get really confusing if you go into any more detail.

a few slight errors
it shows the Eastern Catholic Churches breaking away from the Eastern Orthodox and joining the Catholic Church
while this is true in most cases, there are some, such as the Marronite Church in Lebanon, that have always been Eastern Rite and have never left communion with the Catholic Church
that is a historical error

also, a dogmatic error, it states that the Catholic Church was created by the breaking up of something called "early Christianity"
whereas the Catholic Church is nothing more or nothing less then the continuation of the Apostolic Church that is recorded in Acts of the Apostles

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

a few slight errors
it shows the Eastern Catholic Churches breaking away from the Eastern Orthodox and joining the Catholic Church
while this is true in most cases, there are some, such as the Marronite Church in Lebanon, that have always been Eastern Rite and have never left communion with the Catholic Church
that is a historical error

For the most part, however, the Eastern Catholic Churches are the products of the Second Council of Lyon and the Council of Ferrara-Florence.

also, a dogmatic error, it states that the Catholic Church was created by the breaking up of something called "early Christianity"
whereas the Catholic Church is nothing more or nothing less then the continuation of the Apostolic Church that is recorded in Acts of the Apostles

That's a dogmatic position, not a historical one. And if I had pick a post-Schism church to represent the pre-1054 "Great Church" (as it is often called in scholarly literature), it would definitely be the church of four of the five patriarchs that spoke the language of the New Testament- the Eastern Orthodox. Sorry, but the Latin-speaking western patriarch really can't be said to be representative of the entirety of the first millennium.

 

[Rhamiel]

For the most part, however, the Eastern Catholic Churches are the products of the Second Council of Lyon and the Council of Ferrara-Florence.



That's a dogmatic position, not a historical one. And if I had pick a post-Schism church to represent the pre-1054 "Great Church" (as it is often called in scholarly literature), it would definitely be the church of four of the five patriarchs that spoke the language of the New Testament- the Eastern Orthodox. Sorry, but the Latin-speaking western patriarch really can't be said to be representative of the entirety of the first millennium.

true, the historic error about the Eastern Catholic Churches is slight, most of them did regain communion at those councils that you mentioned, but a few were never separated from communion with the Catholic Church

yes, that is a dogmatic position
but when talking about Church history, doctrine will always color how we view said history
for example, I see the idea that it is just called "early Christianity" to be just as dogmatic as my view
the OP said that she does not want this to be a debate thread so I will not address your very reasonable concerns about 4 out of 5 Patriarchs

 

[Second Phoenix]

I am looking for info on Church History, from the time of Christ's resurrection until now. Such things as how the churches have changed through the centuries. There is the Reformation Movement, Pentecostal/Charismatic Movement and Emergent Movement.

Interests are why they changed, where the denominations came from, such as Baptists, etc. Looking for charts, books, websites with good info.

Also looking for charts and info on the bible translations and why they changed through the centuries as well.

You will also see this thread in the Messianic section as well. I am trying to gain info on both sides of the coin. Looking on Messianic as well as the Christian perspective.

No debates please.

Moriah Ruth

Messianic Christians are Christians - they came from 19th Century England. They are a combination of protestant (type II) theology with modern Rabbinic practices.

 

[Second Phoenix]

I found this website which explains the denominations.

Where Did The Denominations Come From?

No, that's very wrong.

 

[prodromos]

You can read "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware online at the Intratext library

Orthodox Church - Table of Contents - IntraText CT

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I am looking for info on Church History, from the time of Christ's resurrection until now. Such things as how the churches have changed through the centuries. There is the Reformation Movement, Pentecostal/Charismatic Movement and Emergent Movement.

Interests are why they changed, where the denominations came from, such as Baptists, etc. Looking for charts, books, websites with good info.

Also looking for charts and info on the bible translations and why they changed through the centuries as well.

You will also see this thread in the Messianic section as well. I am trying to gain info on both sides of the coin. Looking on Messianic as well as the Christian perspective.

No debates please.

Moriah Ruth

In regards to your question - as you already got some excellent resources from others (as seen in #34 ) - I was thinking that you may benefit from some of the resources that have been discussed/mentioned in previous threads (including charts on Church History). On the charts, there was previous historical discussion which you may be blessed by where we discussed differing charts to illustrate the history of how the Church developed in differing camps - as seen here:

GG

GG

The first 1,000 years of Christianity was not all neatly contained in one single line like it was presented to me. I had no idea about the Assyrian or Oriental churches until I learned about them on my own. I knew there were heresies, but not that actual sections of the church had broken off and continued to this day prior to the Great Scism in 1054.

I also had no idea that there are Eastern and Western Rite churches intermingled between the two. Or that some Orthodox churches are not in communion with others. It is not as neat and clean as I was lead to believe.

Charts can help alot in seeing things, as it concerns having a visual perspective to go with the words presented. Tried searching for the charts you said under the name you gave...and the only ones I could find were the following:

​

The other one I was able to find was here.....

The chart I was given did not have all those comments but the actual diagram is accurate. It shows Orthodoxy as a straight, constant line along the bottom, then the breaking off of the RCC, and the Protestant Reformation breaking off from the RCC line. That is an Orthodox perspective of history.

While I've been reading about the early church and development of Christianity, I'm finding the more realistic representation to be along the lines of the chart provided in the original post! I just feel like I wasn't given the whole story.

It all comes down to what you believe to be the truth I guess.

Going back to what you said earlier about other branches in the early church....indeed, it is very intriguing to see the ways that many camps, long before the Great Schism, had their own developments/stories going on for a myriad of reasons.....and yet, due to the lack of awareness of them, people are often unaware of what has truly happened on the other side of the street---no different than it'd be with cultures seperated for ages and only knowing of the side of history relevant to them...and then being surprised to find out others who differed from the traditional thoughts they may've had.

​

To see how there were events akin to "civil wars" waged in major camps that split off from other ones...I was truly tripped out and it made me realize just how multi-layered events could be in the development of groups. Sometimes, it seems that perhaps there's only one side of history given due to whoever it is that is in charge or influencing the historical views given, no different than when Protestants may only record the good found in their camps while neglecting to share the beauty in others...or how many Catholics may only share the ways they may contributed to the Body of Christ and yet selectively leaving out where other camps (be it in the Protestant Movement or the Orthodox world) did the same as they did.​

......It always makes me chuckle when seeing others hear from afar about something called Orthodoxy and think it's all the same...only to realize the many ways that there is diversity, be it seeing how Eastern Orthodox has differing levels (i.e. Greek Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc) or how Eastern Orthodox differ from Coptic Orthodox or how Ethopian Orthodox differ from Indian Orthodox..as I used to be in the camp thinking they were all the same.​

As if that wasn't compicated enough, you ended up running into awareness of how each individual camp had differing branches within it that also took unique course. I'm reminded of Oriential Orthodoxy in India and how multi-faceted it is by itself:​

......Alot of things bring to remembrance the reality that history is never as clean/"cut and dried" as many can make it out to be.​

​

On other discussions/resources to help you, they can be found at the following:

• Church Service ( #21 )
• Church Fathers (#32
• If we didn't have the Bible...
• If We Didn't Have Tradition...
• Luther: the Reformation was Disastrous
• Jewishness of Ancient Church Tradition
• Protestant Reformation vs Primitive Restoration ( #208 /#214 )
• The Renaissance vs Reformatiom: Which One Advanced Mankind Further?
• Misunderstandings on Liturgy/Semtic Issues and Wondering What To Do On It...
• 
  Desertion in the Desert: Examining Whether the Desert Fathers Were Seperatists..
• Byzantine Bills/Gift Economy: What Religious Empire had the Best Economic System?

Additionally, Messianic History is a great thread with great variety of Messianic Jews throughout history...proudly Jewish and Christian - and never seeing any real disconnection. Another excellent resource is Jewish Christianity in apostolic times: A native Jewish Church and Father Bernstein Finds the Jews | The Groom's Family - as it concerns Jewish believers in the Church showing their heritage and what it means to live Messianic within Christendom - and often feel like they live in dual worlds....



Moreover, as it concerns good resources on parts of Church history seldom discussed, there's BY FOOT TO CHINA: Mission of The Church of the East, to 1400 by John M. L. Young. Additionally, I'd HIGHLY recommend an excellent book I was blessed to read by one of my favorite scholars, Philip Jenkins---entitled "The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia — and How It Died"It was very brilliant in discussing the many experiences of believers, whether Jewish or Non-Jewish, who literally spread around the world with the Gospel of Messiah---and yet experienced many pains/difficulties despite the victories they had.

• Armarium Magnum: The Lost History of Christianity by Philip Jenkins
• "Part 1, Dr. Philip Jenkins, The Lost History of Christianity, Part 1 "

• Part 2, Dr. Philip Jenkins, The Lost History of Christianity, Part 2 on ...

• "YouTube - Seaver College Distinguished Lecture Series - Phillip Jenkins"

On Church history, I'm often reminded on how the Church had issues within itself that required questioning and complex dialogue....and sometimes, differences in trajectory which many look back and assume were matters of one side being 100% correct while the other was 100% wrong when it could easily have been a matter of both sides working out perspectives as best as they possibly could. ...be it with many of the Councils or the ways certain groups thrived in other places where other groups perished - and seeing the differences in thinking, like the differences between the Byzantines and the Ghassanids - The Christian Arabs or the Assyrian Church of the East and other groups.

I just read a book on the issue recently that really brought the issue home - as seen in the book entitled Christianity in Iraq: Its Origins and Development to the Present Day by Suha Rassam

​

Really challenged me in regards to studying history, Eastern Christianity and the many ways that being free to ask questions and not always accept certain things 100% simply because of what one group does was essential in the survival of the Church throughout various parts of time.

Church history is truly complex - especially for families that have others of differing faiths within Christendom present.

Ultimately, Hope the information comes in handy for you....

Blessings...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

As for a chart, may I recommend:

That's a pretty good chart showing the major branches. Denominations get really confusing if you go into any more detail.

That chart has always been one of my favorite around - (and being very visual and linear/chronological in my thought process), I was very thankful for the way it sought to lay down the many ways the Body of Christ often experienced shifts.

Of course, even in referencing the chart, there have been things I've had to keep in mind myself when it comes to remembering it's not necessarily complete - some of this brought up before in older discussion (as seen here):

Think of this thread as a spin-off to: http://www.christianforums.com/t7732542/

Instead of the usual (and tiring) Catholicism vs Protestantism and all the polemics and rhetorics, why not discuss something that is rarely touched?

For this one can ask; in terms of doctrines and practices, how different are the restorationists from the historic protestants?

Protestants:
- Anglicans/Episcopalians
- Hussites/Moravians
- Lutherans
- Methodists/Wesleyan (Remonstrance?)
- Reformed/Presbyterians/Congregationalists

Restorationists:
- Adventists/Millerites
- Brethrens
- Campbellites/Stoneites
- Evangelicals/Fundamentals
- Pentecostals/Charismatics
- Quakers/Shakers

Somewhere in between:
- Anabaptists
- Baptists

Do note that the terms and categorization/labelling is disputed and as such not really set on stone.

PS Looks like Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy is being left out again...

Got ya.

On the issue of your OP, I find the history of how the camps evolved quite fascinating...

​

​

​

​

To me, the inevitable result of praising the Protestant Reformation as necessary is that you open the door for having to accept the other aspects of the Restorationist camp that went further than what folks in the Reformation went with - and the door cannot be closed.

In many ways, Protestant churches in our day are a far cry from what they were when the Reformation began and most modern Protestants would be very out of place in a Protestant church from the era of Luther or Calvin…or even the Protestant churches of two centuries ago.​

With positive things coming out of the Restorationist camp, I'm reminded of the Welsh Revival of 1904-05, as most focus on Azuza Street (itself birthed out a view that it was the "END TIMES" and the last move of the Holy Spirit was to happen in their days.."latter rain") as if that was the sole revival/movement developing at the time when in fact there were various others that had impact...connecting with the Pentecostal Movement as well. ​

.......The Reformation had many beautiful things going for it and I do believe the Lord worked in it - but it also had a dark side which set the stage for a lot of mess (more shared here and here/ here)...and we have to be honest with that. For other places to investigate which may be beneficial:​

• Restoration Movement History, Beliefs, and Practices
• "Modern Theology of Restorationism,"
• The Problem with Primitivism - Patheos
• What is Restorationism and the Restoration Movement?
• Primitivism, Radicalism, and the Lamb's War : The Baptist-Quaker ...
• “Ecclesiology In The Major ‘Apostolic’ Restorationist Churches In The United Kingdom,”
• The Problems with Primitivism | Catholic AnswersHughes-The history of Christian primitivism in America

Thanks for the charts, they are quite a good illustration of Church History!

Not a problem and glad to know they came in handy for you

​

Of course, the charts can be limited in how much they may be able to represent all of the aspects of Church history. In example, as it concerns the Tree Branch model used earlier, here are some thoughts from another on the matter that I thought were worth considering...from The Church's Family Tree | Mitchell Lewis. As said there (for brief excerpt):​

​

​

​

​

This particular illustration does not include the various flavors of Reformation Protestantism or the movements influenced by continental pietism, American revivalism or the worldwide missionary movements. Neither does it portray the sometimes wide diversity that exists within each confessional stream. But the tree metaphor is still useful.....In general, however, the “tree” model fails to represent the cross pollination that occurs between branches. While Methodism split from the Church of England, it primarily built itself on Anglican sacraments, Moravian piety and Arminian theology, all cooked together with the creative genius of the Wesley brothers. John Wesley seasoned the mix with ideas from a number of other Christian sources. Anglicanism itself incorporated elements of Calvinism and Catholicism, with each contributing tradition getting the upper hand at various points in English history......​

........There are a lot of Christians who simply don’t care about the church family tree. American Christians tend to look at denominations in the same way they look at brands of automobiles. There may be some brand loyalty among consumers, but very few people care about the history of automobile manufacturing or the evolution of car parts. All they want is a car that meets their needs and preferences. They are purchasing a product, not joining a family.....Others may object to the “tree” model on principle. They don’t see the history of the church in the Orthodox-Catholic family tree at all. Instead, they see the history of the anti-church or the apostate church. It is as if the true church disappeared from history after the New Testament was written and then suddenly reappeared out of nowhere at some point in the recent past. These churches emphasize their continuity with what they perceive to be the church of the New Testament, but not at all with the church of the second and subsequent centuries.....I have come to the conclusion that I can’t disown the tree. I can’t even disown the branches that I’m not on. ​

​

That said, I think that the charts do an amazing job of showing the many ways that we as believers in the Lord from all over are truly connected - and in many respects, even if we disagree, we're still a part of one Body that has dealt with a lot of things​

​

​

​

​

​

​

That said, it's really an excellent chart to keep in mind - and thanks for bringing it up for others ​

 

[Moriah Ruth 777]

Gratia, thank you for the extra books titles. I did see that there are some titles that you mentioned here in the library. Blessings to you.

 

[Moriah Ruth 777]

GXG,

Are you trying to wake me up this morning? Wow. I looked at all those charts and info and my eyes went cross-eyed. Anyway, I do thank you for sending me all this info. I love the charts.

Moriah Ruth

 

[Moriah Ruth 777]

Rhamiel,

Thank you for sharing. Some of the charts may not be as accurate as others, however it gives me an idea of the church history. Some of the charts may be from the Western mindset where others are from the Eastern mindset.

Moriah Ruth

 

[Moriah Ruth 777]

I just want to remind everyone this thread is not a debate thread. If you disagree with someone please PM them. I am only looking for info not debates. Also I would like to thank everyone for the info that they have provided and they have been very helpful. Blessings to all.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I do thank you for sending me all this info. I love the charts.

Moriah Ruth

Glad to know the info and the charts came in handy for ya - and hoping it helps you in your studies as the information given by others will as well.

 

[rockytopva]

Hi Moriah,

There are not 30,000 denominations. That number came out of a report by David Barret a few years back. Unfortunately his numbers are quite skewed. For example, he cites 242 Roman Catholic and over 700 Eastern Orthodox denominations while citing about 9000 protestant denominations. The problem rests on how he assigned data by country. Many denominations have a presence in many countries and are not a different denomination but the same.

And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. - Ecclesiastes 12:12

I took a stab at the seven churches...
1. The Ephesan Candlestick[FONT=&quot]:[/FONT]The Apostolic Church Age
2. The Smyrnaean Candlestick:The Martyr Church Age (Timothy)
3. The Pergamean Candlestick[FONT=&quot]: T[/FONT]he Towers Church Age (Constantine)
4. The Thyatirean Candlestick[FONT=&quot]: [/FONT]Catholic Church Age (Charlemagne)
5. The Sardisean Candlestick[FONT=&quot]: [/FONT]The Reformed Church Age (John Wycliff)
6. The Philadelphian Candlestick: The Revived Church Age (John Wesley)
7. The Laodicean Candlestick The Material Church Age (Dwight L Moody)

1. Ephesus – Apostolic – Leaving the first love… “All they which are in Asia be turned away from me…” – II Timothy 1:15
2. Smyrna – Martyrs – Persecutions ten days… Foxes Book of Martyrs describes ten Roman persecutions.
3. Pergamos – Orthodox – A pyrgos is a fortified structure – Needed for the dark ages.
4. Thyatira – Catholic – The Spirit of Jezebel is to persecute, control, and to dominate. This spirit can invade any church!
5. Sardis – Protestant – A sardius is a gem, elegant yet hard and rigid. Doctrine in the head, little in the heart.
6. Philadelphia – Methodist – To obtain sanctification was to do so with love.
7. Laodicea – Charismatic – Rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing? From hot ---> lukewarm ---> cold?

The problem is, that, as Hentenza said, there are just too many denominations. I do not have the lifespan to get into the complete history of the church as there are so many denominations and so much history. I can get into a generalization, but not specifics. And I cannot defend my position too vigorously as I know not the boundaries of the ages. There are some movements that are a combination of the ages. Some Pentecostal churches these days are more Charismatic for example.

I find it neat to study the most interesting characters of the church age. As my favorite time is that of the Methodist Circuit Rider, I lament the lack of good readings, but I have posted a couple here on CF...

Circuit Rider Robert Sheffey... www.christianforums.com/t7630646/
Circuit Rider George Clark Rankin... http://www.christianforums.com/t7757196/

 

[seashale76]

I'd recommend reading Jaroslav Pelikan. He was a noted scholar in Christian history and theology and taught at Yale.

The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, 5 vols. (1973–1990). Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Volume 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition 100–600 (1973) ISBN 0-226-65371-4
Volume 2: The Spirit of Eastern Christendom 600–1700 (1974) ISBN 0-226-65373-0
Volume 3: The Growth of Medieval Theology 600–1300 (1978) ISBN 0-226-65375-7
Volume 4: Reformation of Church and Dogma 1300–1700 (1984) ISBN 0-226-65377-3
Volume 5: Christian Doctrine and Modern Culture since 1700 (1990) ISBN 0-226-65380-3

Amazon.com: Jaroslav Pelikan: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle

 

[Rhamiel]

I am sorry if my posts seemed like debates

I do not think there is an "unbiased" view of the history of the Christian Church
each Church and sect will favor their own group
secular writers will treat the Church as a man made phenomenon

so whoever you read, try to keep in mind that they have a bias

 

[Albion]

I am sorry if my posts seemed like debates

This IS a forum where frank discussion of ideas is acceptable, even if some particular poster says that he or she isn't interested in it.

I do not think there is an "unbiased" view of the history of the Christian Church
each Church and sect will favor their own group
secular writers will treat the Church as a man made phenomenon

so whoever you read, try to keep in mind that they have a bias

I'm not convinced of that. I've read a number of books on this subject that are quite objective.

 

[rockytopva]

I am sorry if my posts seemed like debates

I do not think there is an "unbiased" view of the history of the Christian Church
each Church and sect will favor their own group
secular writers will treat the Church as a man made phenomenon

so whoever you read, try to keep in mind that they have a bias

The different perspectives is what makes it interesting! When giving my perspective on the churches I try not to promote one over the other.

 

[Moriah Ruth 777]

Rhamiel,

You are fine. I accept your input and the info that you have provided. No worries at this end.

 

[Moriah Ruth 777]

Albion,

Thank you for your input, however I do not like debates. I was looking for info twas all. But I am not after you. You are fine.