If Protestantism is true, why they are not united? (2)

[Rick Otto]

Wasn't the first schism within the church that which occurred around 431 AD with the Assyrian church - earlier divisions being between Christianity and various early heresies such as that of the ebionites and that of the Donatists and that of Marcion?

Heresy is qualitatively different from schism, yes?

 

[MoreCoffee]

You would be great at writing brochures, MoreCoffee!

A little story for you, dear brother.

One day many years ago, in a little town in Luxembourg, a Captain of the Forest Guards was in deep conversation with the butcher when an elderly woman entered the shop. The butcher broke off the conversation to ask the old woman what she wanted. She had come to beg for a little meat but had no money. The Captain was amused at the conversation which ensued between the poor woman and the butcher, “only a little meat, but how much are you going to give me?”

“I’m sorry I have no money but I’ll hear Mass for you.” Both the butcher and the Captain were good men but very indifferent about religion, so they at once began to scoff at the old woman’s answer.

“All right then,” said the butcher, “you go and hear Mass for me and when you come back I’ll give you as much meat as the Mass is worth.”

The woman left the shop and returned later. She approached the counter and the butcher seeing her said, “All Right then we’ll see.” He took a slip of paper and wrote on it “I heard a Mass for you.” He then placed the paper on the scales and a tiny bone on the other side but nothing happened. Next he placed a piece of meat instead of the bone, but still the paper proved heavier. Both men were beginning to feel ashamed of their mockery but continued their game. A large piece of meat was placed on the balance, but still the paper held its own. The butcher exasperated, examined the scales, but found they were all right. “What do you want my good woman, must I give you a whole leg of mutton?” At this he placed the leg of mutton on the balance, but the paper outweighed the meat. A larger piece of meat was put on, but again the weight remained on the side of the paper. This so impressed the butcher that he was converted, and promised to give the women her daily ration of meat.

As for the Captain, he left the shop a changed man. An ardent lover of daily Mass. Two of his sons became priests, one a Jesuit and the other a Father of the Sacred Heart.

Father Stanislaus finished by saying “I am of the Religious of the Sacred Heart, and the Captain was my father.”

From that incident the Captain became a daily Mass goer and his children were trained to follow his example. Later when his sons became priests, he advised them to say Mass well every day and never miss the Sacrifice of the Mass through any fault of their own.
​

 

[Targaryen]

Wasn't the first schism within the church that which occurred around 431 AD with the Assyrian church - earlier divisions being between Christianity and various early heresies such as that of the ebionites and that of the Donatists and that of Marcion?

451 AD actually was the date of the ecumenical council dealing with the Monophysite heresy, but pretty close enough to get me to re-reasearch the first schism.

 

[GoingByzantine]

Is not one of the first schisms found in 3 John 1?

9 I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us.
10 Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church.
11 Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. He who does good is of God, but he who does evil has not seen God.
12 Demetrius has a good testimony from all, and from the truth itself. And we also bear witness, and you know that our testimony is true.

 

[MoreCoffee]

451 AD actually was the date of the ecumenical council dealing with the Monophysite heresy, but pretty close enough to get me to re-reasearch the first schism.

431 AD was the year of the council of Ephesus which was the catalyst for the first schism and the Assyrian Church is the church that separated from the mainstream. In 451 AD the council of Chalcidon led to the second schism which gave is the separation of the Oriental Orthodox from the mainstream.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Is not one of the first schisms found in 3 John 1?

9 I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us. 10 Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church. 11 Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. He who does good is of God, but he who does evil has not seen God. 12 Demetrius has a good testimony from all, and from the truth itself. And we also bear witness, and you know that our testimony is true.

That is possible, if it was a schism, but it may have been no longer lasting than the time during which Diotrephes failed to extend hospitality.

 

[Tzaousios]

Howdy, Tza... hope you're havin' a great day.

Thanks, I hope you are too.

I don't think most Evangelicals give much thought to Catholics at all.

Okay. This, to me, would indicate a problem, especially when they try to assess problems of persecution and death of non-Protestant Christians on an international scale.

My bias in an opinion on that would be any suspicion would be that they are too "Arab" and culturally misogynistic, when not busy with misanthropy.

Agreed. That can definitely add to the misunderstanding and lack of knowledge on Middle Eastern Christians.

Do you generaly prefer the company and/or conversation of Catholics to Evangelicals for some reason.

These days, I tend to gravitate towards conversing with and the company of Orthodox and Catholics. However, I do enjoy the same things with Lutherans and Calvinist Presbyterians who pay attention to history and historical interpretations.

Maybe it's just me, but I can't recall any of your posts showing them much respect or defending them about anything, not that I've read all of your posts, but I've been here in GT long and consistently enough to feel confident in saying that.

Evangelicals? It is true that these days I find less and less in common with the intellectual and spiritual views of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. However, believe it or not, I was born-and-raised Southern Baptist, and still attend an SBC church with my wife and children. That being said, as one who teaches premodern history, I love the Greek church fathers, and I attend a local Antiochian Orthodox parish from time to time when I get the chance.

As for "defending," I just defended a Calvinist Christian today in Apologetics. I also go to Soteriology from time to time and take the side of Reformed Christians against the anti-Calvinist bigotry that pops up there.

From 2008-2012, or so, I went through I reformed phase where I attended a high church Presbyterian church for a while. I also took yours and others' side against the Catholic tendency to throw the post-348 AD Augustine under the bus. At one point, I had collected all of the posts where I did such things to PM to you. After a while, though, I figured it was a lost cause.

 

[Targaryen]

431 AD was the year of the council of Ephesus which was the catalyst for the first schism and the Assyrian Church is the church that separated from the mainstream. In 451 AD the council of Chalcidon led to the second schism which gave is the separation of the Oriental Orthodox from the mainstream.

From the wikipedia page on the Assyrian church:

"Under pressure from the Sassanid Emperor, the Church of the East sought increasingly to distance itself from the western (Roman Empire) Catholic Church. In 424, the bishops of the Sassanid Empire met in council under the leadership of Catholicos Mar Dadisho I (421–456) and determined that they would not, henceforth, refer disciplinary or theological problems to any external power, and especially not to any bishop or Church Council in the Roman Empire."

This is a grey area of schism in my opinion if the paragraph I selected is of indication. This doesn't state that the Assyrian church in that period would not recognize the Roman church as a part of the catholic church, but it would not refer to the Roman Empire and it's church in matter of dicipline or theology.

I'm not sure that under the category of schism this would be a clean break rather then a matter or jurisdiction.

 

[Rick Otto]

A little story for you, dear brother.

Oh, I get your point.
Your simply entertaining us & yourself with fiction!

And btw,:
Heresy is qualitatively different from schism, yes?

 

[MoreCoffee]

From the wikipedia page on the Assyrian church:

"Under pressure from the Sassanid Emperor, the Church of the East sought increasingly to distance itself from the western (Roman Empire) Catholic Church. In 424, the bishops of the Sassanid Empire met in council under the leadership of Catholicos Mar Dadisho I (421–456) and determined that they would not, henceforth, refer disciplinary or theological problems to any external power, and especially not to any bishop or Church Council in the Roman Empire."

This is a grey area of schism in my opinion if the paragraph I selected is of indication. This doesn't state that the Assyrian church in that period would not recognize the Roman church as a part of the catholic church, but it would not refer to the Roman Empire and it's church in matter of dicipline or theology.

I'm not sure that under the category of schism this would be a clean break rather then a matter or jurisdiction.

Read on in that article (from wikipedia), it says:

The theological controversy that followed the First Council of Ephesus, in 431, proved a turning point in the Church's history. The Council condemned as heretical the Christology of Nestorius, whose reluctance to accord the Virgin Mary the title 'Theotokos' ('God-bearer' or 'Mother of God') was taken as evidence that he believed two separate persons (as opposed to two united natures) to be present within Christ. (For the theological issues at stake, see Assyrian Church of the East and Nestorianism.)

The Sassanid Emperor, hostile to the Roman Empire, saw the opportunity to ensure the loyalty of his Christian subjects and lent support to the Nestorian schism. The Sassanid Emperor took steps to cement the primacy of the Nestorian party within the Church of the East, granting its members his protection, and executing the pro-Roman Catholicos Babowai, replacing him with the Nestorian Bishop of Nisibis, Barsauma. The Catholic​

 

[MoreCoffee]

...
And btw,: Heresy is qualitatively different from schism, yes?

Is that a question or a request for affirmation?

 

[Targaryen]

hmmm thus corrected...then yes, the schism happened much sooner then I had thought.

Thank you Coffee

 

[Tzaousios]

Just wanted to make sure Mr. Otto saw that I answered his questions in post #67. Thanks.

 

[MoreCoffee]

hmmm thus corrected...than yes, the schism happened much sooner then I had thought.

Thank you Coffee

You are most gracious and most welcome; you are a good conversation partner.

God be with you always.

 

[Rick Otto]

QUOTE=Tzaousios;Thanks, I hope you are too.

It's been great, but I still need to play frisbee with my Aussie Shep, and "make a salad" (pick some weeds) for the chickens I built a decent coop for this spring. (decent for an amateur carpenter, anyway)

Okay. This, to me, would indicate a problem, especially when they try to assess problems of persecution and death of non-Protestant Christians on an international scale.

Well, by and large, I'm sayin' they don't. The ones in GT, I can believe might be guilty of that, but I can't really give an opinion on it, 'cause I haven't given them a lot of attention, especially on that issue.

These days, I tend to gravitate towards conversing with and the company of Orthodox and Catholics. However, I do enjoy the same things with Lutherans and Calvinist Presbyterians who pay attention to history and historical interpretations.

I 'get' all that, but do you know of any criticisms of classical history?
And at the same time, I wonder if there is any possible one theory of conspiracy that you respect? I'm thinking of Woodward and Bernstein and wonder what the heck you were talkin' about when you said I flatter myself. Did you think I was equating myself with investigative reporters?
That wasn't my intent.

Evangelicals? It is true that these days I find less and less in common with the intellectual and spiritual views of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. However, believe it or not, I was born-and-raised Southern Baptist, and still attend an SBC church with my wife and children. That being said, as one who teaches premodern history, I love the Greek church fathers, and I attend a local Antiochian Orthodox parish from time to time when I get the chance.

I can easily picture you're growing dissatisfaction with available intellectual stimulation of an SBC congregation, & that nurturing the ambition to academic achievement. I can also easily imagine one appreciating the civilizing influence of those churches.

As for "defending," I just defended a Calvinist Christian today in Apologetics. I also go to Soteriology from time to time and take the side of Reformed Christians against the anti-Calvinist bigotry that pops up there.

From 2008-2012, or so, I went through I reformed phase where I attended a high church Presbyterian church for a while. I also took yours and others' side against the Catholic tendency to throw the post-348 AD Augustine under the bus. At one point, I had collected all of the posts where I did such things to PM to you. After a while, though, I figured it was a lost cause.

Well then thanks for correcting my perception. I would've and do take you on your word on such things. It's just that we have had dis-similar pasts in respect to religion, and mine has nurtured the ambition to "get the goods", not just on catholic & orthodox history & doctrine, but on under reformed Protestants. The charismatics my wife became attached to, drove me crazy with Arminian lack of eternal security (OSAS, election & grace, etc,) but I couldn't articulate why until I got online in 2000 and discovered Reform Theology through Michael Bunker, who happens to have a #19 best seller on Amazon, I heard the other day on NPR. Now,... he's still Texan(lol), but he's become Amish, and they accept his solar powered online presence and other technology exceptions.
I stopped and visited him a few times on my way to Tucson, when he was still in near Lubbock in the panhandle. I found him to be diligent and scholarly on these subjects, but personally thought he was too much of a bully for me.

See, I'm still involved in the issues and find my fellowship in that and there are too many of us out here doing the same thing as me, to let anyone call me/us a lone wolf christian. It completely disrespects my sincere efforts and successes, in my opinion. Stuff no one could know about unless they knew me personaly and thereby freed themselves of any reflexive assumptions & other baggage that come with being associated with formal groups.
I don't mean that as a condemnation of them, I just respect my own realization that I don't belong in any of them.

Anyway, thanks for your attention. I feel like I know you a whole lot better now.

 

[Rick Otto]

Is that a question of a request for affirmation?

When I read that post, it looked like you were equating them in a way I didn't recognize. That's why I asked. I was just confused, thanks.

 

[Rick Otto]

Just wanted to make sure Mr. Otto saw that I answered his questions in post #67. Thanks.

Gotchya covered, bro.

It's frisbee the dog and feed chickens then put 'em to bed, for the next hour or so.

brb.

 

[squint]

See, I'm still involved in the issues and find my fellowship in that and there are too many of us out here doing the same thing as me, to let anyone call me/us a lone wolf christian. It completely disrespects my sincere efforts and successes, in my opinion. Stuff no one could know about unless they knew me personaly and thereby freed themselves of any reflexive assumptions & other baggage that come with being associated with formal groups.
I don't mean that as a condemnation of them, I just respect my own realization that I don't belong in any of them.

Anyway, thanks for your attention. I feel like I know you a whole lot better now.

Legit sights above and yes, that is the first time I recall T recounting anything on a personal scale for his christian relativity points. The last thing I'd have guessed is participation with the SBC. A full dunker. Who'd a thunk it?

 

[Tzaousios]

It's been great, but I still need to play frisbee with my Aussie Shep, and "make a salad" (pick some weeds) for the chickens I built a decent coop for this spring. (decent for an amateur carpenter, anyway)

Cool! When I am not writing on this interminable dissertation of mine, I am playing baseball with my young son and helping my wife with the new daughter we just had.

Well, by and large, I'm sayin' they don't. The ones in GT, I can believe might be guilty of that, but I can't really give an opinion on it, 'cause I haven't given them a lot of attention, especially on that issue.

Okay. I have tried to give voice to the Middle Eastern Christians as much as I can without delving into the political aspect too much.

It just grieves me to see that many Evangelicals let the demands of Dispensationalist eschatology, and Zionist politics, which often go hand-in-hand, blind them to the persecution and slaughter of their ancient family in Christ in Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. I think they would be in for a rude awakening if they saw how the Orthodox Jewish community in Israel treats Christians.

I 'get' all that, but do you know of any criticisms of classical history?

What do you mean? By evangelical scholars?

And at the same time, I wonder if there is any possible one theory of conspiracy that you respect?

Certainly there are some that are plausible. There aren't any at the moment that I can think of that I would dwell upon.

I'm thinking of Woodward and Bernstein and wonder what the heck you were talkin' about when you said I flatter myself. Did you think I was equating myself with investigative reporters?
That wasn't my intent.

I want to take the opportunity to apologize for that comment. I made it in haste in the heat of the back-and-forth and am sorry for it. Please forgive me.

I can easily picture you're growing dissatisfaction with available intellectual stimulation of an SBC congregation, & that nurturing the ambition to academic achievement. I can also easily imagine one appreciating the civilizing influence of those churches.

It can be very difficult, especially when both families are mostly if not all Baptists or Evangelicals of some sort. I try to meet them at their interests and once in a while they entertain mine.

I harbor no ill-will towards my personal SBC experience, which has not been one of ignorance or bigotry. I gained my love for the church and for Scripture growing up in one.

At this point in my life, reading all I have read, and praying and agonizing for years over so many different theological and ecclesiological matters, the SBC or Evangelicalism is just not what I identify with or find spiritual challenge and nourishment.

Well then thanks for correcting my perception. I would've and do take you on your word on such things. It's just that we have had dis-similar pasts in respect to religion, and mine has nurtured the ambition to "get the goods", not just on catholic & orthodox history & doctrine, but on under reformed Protestants.

I totally understand how you and many others have had terrible and even damaging experiences in Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It just troubles me and becomes a stumbling block when it is phrased in certain ways or with a certain mentality. I say this fully realizing that I probably do not express my problems with such things as well as I could.

The charismatics my wife became attached to, drove me crazy with Arminian lack of eternal security (OSAS, election & grace, etc,) but I couldn't articulate why until I got online in 2000 and discovered Reform Theology through Michael Bunker, who happens to have a #19 best seller on Amazon, I heard the other day on NPR. Now,... he's still Texan(lol), but he's become Amish, and they accept his solar powered online presence and other technology exceptions.

I can sympathize with that. The SBC environment I grew up in was pop-Arminian by default. This is probably why I went through a Reformed phase and found solace in a Presbyterian church for a while. I still love A. W. Pink's The Sovereignty of God in so many ways. It is on my bookshelf and I read it over again from time to time.

I still identify with Reformed Christians on some levels both intellectually and theologically. Although I am not much of a strict Calvinist, I still identify myself as "Augustinian" when it comes to matters of election/predestination, divine grace, and the human will. Without Augustine's ground-breaking interpretations of Romans, there arguably would not have been a recognizable Luther or Calvin.

See, I'm still involved in the issues and find my fellowship in that and there are too many of us out here doing the same thing as me, to let anyone call me/us a lone wolf christian. It completely disrespects my sincere efforts and successes, in my opinion. Stuff no one could know about unless they knew me personaly and thereby freed themselves of any reflexive assumptions & other baggage that come with being associated with formal groups.

Okay. I have found conversations interesting that I have had with you in the past. You have also given me cause to examine they way I express myself. I will try not to use the term "lonewolf" to describe you in a pejorative manner.

I don't mean that as a condemnation of them, I just respect my own realization that I don't belong in any of them.

Anyway, thanks for your attention. I feel like I know you a whole lot better now.

Thanks for the understanding. The same goes for me. I will try to express myself better and not use demeaning terms to describe the issues or problems that I have with Protestantism and Evangelicalism.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Gotchya covered, bro.

It's frisbee the dog and feed chickens then put 'em to bed, for the next hour or so.

brb.

Chicken make lousy house pet. Dana Carvey