Messianic History

[visionary]

What makes them Restorationist is the implicit or explicit claim of some sort of apostasy requiring a restoration in the first place.

You know, that those groups who don't have this "restoration"... are in serious need of repent and restoration to the ancient faith of Yeshua.

 

[Heber Book List]

Please define what this 'restoration' that is needed actually is, in detail - at one extreme is the Mormons.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You know, that those groups who don't have this "restoration"... are in serious need of repent and restoration to the ancient faith of Yeshua.

If I 'knew' that I wouldn't be Orthodox now would I?

Please define what this 'restoration' that is needed actually is, in detail - at one extreme is the Mormons.

see post #600

 

[Heber Book List]

see post #600

That shows precisely nothing in detail.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

That shows precisely nothing in detail.

What more needs to be said regarding restorationist ideology? They assert that the Church historic has lost it's away or that the Church in it's entirety has ceased to exist that God needed to act decisively in order to restore it to earth. It's either an implicit or explicit belief in the failure of the original Church and God's needing to bring about a new Church.

 

[Heber Book List]

What more needs to be said regarding restorationist ideology? They assert that the Church historic has lost it's away or that the Church in it's entirety has ceased to exist that God needed to act decisively in order to restore it to earth. It's either an implicit or explicit belief in the failure of the original Church and God's needing to bring about a new Church.

Is this entirely your view? What about academic papers / books backing up your limited 'evidence' - have you read any to support your views?

 

[visionary]

What more needs to be said regarding restorationist ideology? They assert that the Church historic has lost it's away or that the Church in it's entirety has ceased to exist that God needed to act decisively in order to restore it to earth. It's either an implicit or explicit belief in the failure of the original Church and God's needing to bring about a new Church.

Which neither your church or the catholic church has any right to declare since it has lost God's way.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Is this entirely your view? What about academic papers / books backing up your limited 'evidence' - have you read any to support your views?

Evidence to support my view about what Restorationism is? I thought it self evident and uncontroversial. There are two senses of the word within theological discussion, one referring to the idea of all being reconciled to God, the other is how I described it. Oxford defines it as such.

noun a charismatic Christian movement seeking to restore the beliefs and practices of the early Church.

Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson, eds., Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

Also:

A closely related polarity is that between restorationism and developmentalism. The former encourages a return to the pristine church of the apostolic era. The latter avers that the right doctrinal understanding develops or unfolds through the ages under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Donald G. Bloesch, The Church: Sacraments, Worship, Ministry, Mission (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 83.

This shouldn't be controversial.

Which neither your church or the catholic church has any right to declare since it has lost God's way.

Whether or not my Church is the true faith is not the topic of the thread.

 

[Heber Book List]

Evidence to support my view about what Restorationism is? I thought it self evident and uncontroversial. There are two senses of the word within theological discussion, one referring to the idea of all being reconciled to God, the other is how I described it. Oxford defines it as such.

noun a charismatic Christian movement seeking to restore the beliefs and practices of the early Church.

Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson, eds., Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

Also:

A closely related polarity is that between restorationism and developmentalism. The former encourages a return to the pristine church of the apostolic era. The latter avers that the right doctrinal understanding develops or unfolds through the ages under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Donald G. Bloesch, The Church: Sacraments, Worship, Ministry, Mission (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 83.

This shouldn't be controversial.

How do we know what material you are relying on for your assertions, if you do not provide links; it is a common courtesy on these fora to provide such information, or your comments may be regarded as your own judgment, or that of your denomination. Material about this subject has been around for a very long time - it also appears in Islamic material according to some writers on the matter in the 19th century. The Mormons are often mentioned as a 'modern day' result of restorationism, as well, and I expect a few other groups will fall in that category.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

How do we know what material you are relying on for your assertions, if you do not provide links; it is a common courtesy on these fora to provide such information, or your comments may be regarded as your own judgment, or that of your denomination. Material about this subject has been around for a very long time - it also appears in Islamic material according to some writers on the matter in the 19th century. The Mormons are often mentioned as a 'modern day' result of restorationism, as well, and I expect a few other groups will fall in that category.

Unfortunately what I posted does not come from the internet but a program called Logos. Given that the quotation is sourced (Book, year, author, page number) I'm not exactly sure what you want. Doing a quick google search for "Oxford, Restorationism" comes up with the same definition. Do you want the entire paragraph or something? Because all that the author of the book I quoted does is list the different Christian positions there are on Church authority. Invest in Logos Platnium (Like I have) or purchase the book if you really don't trust I am accurately quoting the source.

Take in mind, you are the one who demanded a scholarly resource for a pretty basic theological word/concept and I provided it. Even Wikipedia backs up what I'm saying concerning Restorationism.

I am really confused as to what your gripe is with what I'm saying. It doesn't seem that controversial unless you are denying that modern Messianicism doesn't have the character of Restorationism. Given that Messianics advocate a return to Torah partially or in full as the Apostolic model and they criticise the established and historical Churches for not doing so, there seems definitely to be something of a Restorationist ethos that undercuts Messianicism. The claim is that Messianics are returning to what was lost.

Am I wrong here? If so, why?

 

[visionary]

Evidence to support my view about what Restorationism is? I thought it self evident and uncontroversial. There are two senses of the word within theological discussion, one referring to the idea of all being reconciled to God, the other is how I described it. Oxford defines it as such.

noun a charismatic Christian movement seeking to restore the beliefs and practices of the early Church.

Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson, eds., Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

Also:

A closely related polarity is that between restorationism and developmentalism. The former encourages a return to the pristine church of the apostolic era. The latter avers that the right doctrinal understanding develops or unfolds through the ages under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Donald G. Bloesch, The Church: Sacraments, Worship, Ministry, Mission (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 83.

This shouldn't be controversial.



Whether or not my Church is the true faith is not the topic of the thread.

If you had read our forum intro, you would have known... The former encourages a return to the pristine church of the apostolic era.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

If you had read our forum intro, you would have known... The former encourages a return to the pristine church of the apostolic era.

Hence why I said Messianicism has a restorationist character.

 

[visionary]

Hence why I said Messianicism has a restorationist character.

only in the concept that it needs to be restored, but not in the context that we see that it has always existed in the remnant of His people, and just more noticeable now.

 

[Heber Book List]

Unfortunately what I posted does not come from the internet but a program called Logos. Given that the quotation is sourced (Book, year, author, page number) I'm not exactly sure what you want. Doing a quick google search for "Oxford, Restorationism" comes up with the same definition. Do you want the entire paragraph or something? Because all that the author of the book I quoted does is list the different Christian positions there are on Church authority. Invest in Logos Platnium (Like I have) or purchase the book if you really don't trust I am accurately quoting the source.

Take in mind, you are the one who demanded a scholarly resource for a pretty basic theological word/concept and I provided it. Even Wikipedia backs up what I'm saying concerning Restorationism.

I am really confused as to what your gripe is with what I'm saying. It doesn't seem that controversial unless you are denying that modern Messianicism doesn't have the character of Restorationism. Given that Messianics advocate a return to Torah partially or in full as the Apostolic model and they criticise the established and historical Churches for not doing so, there seems definitely to be something of a Restorationist ethos that undercuts Messianicism. The claim is that Messianics are returning to what was lost.

Am I wrong here? If so, why?

The books you have quoted will enable people to read up on what you say - to just throw out a thought, with no back up, or other evidence, does not give that chance. Wikipedia is totally useless for any serious stuff simply because anyone can make it read what they want it to say.

It is not about you being wrong, necessarily, but sparse information and an accusation against parts of the Church will raise hackles with some posters, as you have seen. It may also have been that you relied on works from the 19th century, which may well be seen as being outdated, now.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

only in the concept that it needs to be restored, but not in the context that we see that it has always existed in the remnant of His people, and just more noticeable now.

Then we come back to the problem of there being no proof for such a statement which was my first criticism.

The way I see is that Christ said a city on a hill cannot be hidden and the lack of Messianics in the historical record, leaving their mark is a problem you cannot account for. Why did Messianics fail to attain the sort of reach that Christians in the Roman Empire had even before it's Christianization? Why did they fail to be beacons that Christ said his followers would be? They were either impotent or didn't exist. The latter is hard to defend but it is better than suggesting the Messianics were just hanging about hiding in a cave somewhere.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The books you have quoted will enable people to read up on what you say - to just throw out a thought, with no back up, or other evidence, does not give that chance. Wikipedia is totally useless for any serious stuff simply because anyone can make it read what they want it to say.

It is not about you being wrong, necessarily, but sparse information and an accusation against parts of the Church will raise hackles with some posters, as you have seen. It may also have been that you relied on works from the 19th century, which may well be seen as being outdated, now.

While wikipedia is not a perfect resource, it is a good general resource for getting an overview of something you want to know about. One can choose to go deep or look on the surface and wikipedia supplies the latter. To suggest it is worthless is to suggest that there is nothing true on the website. Are you going to tell me that Wikipedia's definition of Messianic Judaism is completely useless? Or that one cannot gain an overview of Eastern Orthodoxy from it?

Donald G. Bloesch, The Church: Sacraments, Worship, Ministry, Mission (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 83.

19th century?!?

Again, what is wrong with these sources? Do you not know that the year 2002/2004 is from our current century?

What is the problem here? What is your argument?

 

[Heber Book List]

While wikipedia is not a perfect resource, it is a good general resource for getting an overview of something you want to know about. One can choose to go deep or look on the surface and wikipedia supplies the latter. To suggest it is worthless is to suggest that there is nothing true on the website. Are you going to tell me that Wikipedia's definition of Messianic Judaism is completely useless? Or that one cannot gain an overview of Eastern Orthodoxy from it?

Donald G. Bloesch, The Church: Sacraments, Worship, Ministry, Mission (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 83.

19th century?!?

Again, what is wrong with these sources? Do you not know that the year 2002/2004 is from our current century?

What is the problem here? What is your argument?

I think the problem might be that you are not reading what is written in front of you. I mentioned that Restorationism has been around for a long time, going back to the 19th century and, without you giving the sources for what you say, it may have been taken that you were referring to outdated sources in the 19th Century. The problem with that possibility would be that in those times Restorationism was usually worked out in a cult, as has happened many times right up to today, as I am sure you are aware.

Wikipedia is simply not an academic resource, and should not be relied on for anything. Many have fallen foul of its inaccuracies, to their cost.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I think the problem might be that you are not reading what is written in front of you. I mentioned that Restorationism has been around for a long time, going back to the 19th century and, without you giving the sources for what you say, it may have been taken that you were referring to outdated sources in the 19th Century. The problem with that possibility would be that in those times Restorationism was usually worked out in a cult, as has happened many times right up to today, as I am sure you are aware.

Wikipedia is simply not an academic resource, and should not be relied on for anything. Many have fallen foul of its inaccuracies, to their cost.

Is this statement true or false:

Restorationism, also described as Christian Primitivism, is the belief that Christianity has been or should be restored along the lines of what is known about the apostolic early church, which restorationists see as the search for a more pure and more ancient form of the religion.

?

Also, I'm at a loss as to why you would automatically assume my definition comes from the 19th century instead of assuming the modern meaning of the word in the course of our current discussion. Unless I demonstrate a visible ignorance about the meaning of the term (In this case, it meaning cult apparently), there's no real reason to criticise me, but since I haven't I have no idea why you persisted in going down this tedious rabbit hole.

 

[Heber Book List]

Is this statement true or false:

Restorationism, also described as Christian Primitivism, is the belief that Christianity has been or should be restored along the lines of what is known about the apostolic early church, which restorationists see as the search for a more pure and more ancient form of the religion.

?

Also, I'm at a loss as to why you would automatically assume my definition comes from the 19th century instead of assuming the modern meaning of the word in the course of our current discussion. Unless I demonstrate a visible ignorance as tot he term, there's no real reason to criticise me, but since I haven't I have no idea why you persisted in going down this tedious rabit hole.

For goodness sake - read what is actually written! Until you show that you can do so I shall ignore your posts.

 

[visionary]

Then we come back to the problem of there being no proof for such a statement which was my first criticism.

The way I see is that Christ said a city on a hill cannot be hidden and the lack of Messianics in the historical record, leaving their mark is a problem you cannot account for. Why did Messianics fail to attain the sort of reach that Christians in the Roman Empire had even before it's Christianization? Why did they fail to be beacons that Christ said his followers would be? They were either impotent or didn't exist. The latter is hard to defend but it is better than suggesting the Messianics were just hanging about hiding in a cave somewhere.

Revelation is proof that not only does it exist through the ages, but will be alive and well at His return.