Some Church History

[1watchman]

ViaCrucis, I notice you claim to be a Lutheran, yet you are always upholding and defending the RC Religion. Do the Lutherans you are with know of your dual role?

 

[maryofoxford]

ViaCrucis, I notice you claim to be a Lutheran, yet you are always upholding and defending the RC Religion. Do the Lutherans you are with know of your dual role?

While you wait for ViaCrucis to answer, I'd suggest you consider that it's just possible that he knows the truth of what the Catholic Church actually believes. He may also happened to have studied (like I have) the Early Church Fathers and other historic writing having to do with the early Christians.

Not only as a lifelong Roman Catholic, but as one who has studied my faith more in depth than most, I take great offense to what has been written here. Not only by the OP, but by Job8 as well.

It's so very sad to see how many Protestants will accept as fact, the writings of anti-Catholics, that have written about Catholic doctrines and
history. Even sadder is when they teach these errors as the truth. Have you ever considered that you are breaking the commandment to not falsely accuse thy neighbor??

Would you listen to gossip at the grocery store and than place a letter condemning that person that was gossiped about, in the local paper? Would you do such a thing without finding out the facts of the case and making sure that those facts were actually true? Especially if it involved the beliefs of that person?? Well every time you publish hateful remarks regarding the Catholic Church without first checking Catholic resources to find out if what you were taught or read was in fact the truth, that is exactly what you are doing! I can't stress this enough! How would you feel, having done this, to go before the Lord and answer for falsely accusing this faith, and her teachers. If you want to criticize things we actually believe, go for it. I'll gladly defend my beliefs. But, to have to defend things that we don't even believe?! Are you kidding me?

I can give you the actual quotes of the first Christians, some 40 books worth, not counting, 'The History of the Church' by Eusebius, and the book of 'Josephus'. Oh yes, let's not forget to add, The Dead Sea Scrolls too. If I should think of more material outside of these, and Sacred Scripture, that I can use to support the beliefs of my faith, I'll be happy to mention those texts as well. But, pls be respectful of my faith, as I will be of yours; and give me the chance to defend it.

I think you've forgoten something though; if it weren't for the Catholic Church, you wouldn't have a Bible to believe in! Exactly which church do you think decided which gospels and letters would go into that New Testament you base your faith on? Do you honestly think for one minute that the spirit of the antichrist would have included all the God inspired texts into God's Bible?? You might recall Jesus said, "Satan cannot cast out Satan"? Likewise Satan cannot infallibly make the New Testament of his sworn enemy! It goes against his very nature!

I don't think that I need to say much more. God is love; pure love. Jesus taught us to love our enemy. To say hateful things about a faith that you haven't studied, then publicly post nasty comments about the faith of 2.5 Billion believers, doesn't reflect the love of Jesus, not the Jesus I know, worship, pray to, and adore anyway.

It would be a step in the right direction if you started by asking how you can find out the truth about the faith of the Catholic Church. If you don't think you'd have the nerve to read material on the Catholic faith, than just try starting by asking a question regarding something you'd been told we believe and let a Catholic website or someone who is a Catholic apologist answer your question. Feel free to ask for proof that the answer your given is the correct one too. Any good Catholic apologist should be happy to give that to you. If they can't supply it, then they don't know the faith well enough, and you should ask someone else.

I'd love for this to be the last time that I have to speak about this. I take comfort in the fact that the Lord said, "Is the servant above his master?" If they condemned Jesus and called Him the Devil, than I will consider it an honor to endure the same.

The peace of Christ be with you all.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

ViaCrucis, I notice you claim to be a Lutheran, yet you are always upholding and defending the RC Religion. Do the Lutherans you are with know of your dual role?

Yes, we do. Maybe you should consider looking more closely at the Lutheran Reformation as opposed to the radical reformation that followed.

While much has changed, there are still fundamental issues that preclude reunion and fellowship with Lutherans and Catholics, but what separates our two Churches is far less than what separates Catholics and Lutherans from the vast majority of protestant Churches and denominations.

Read the Augsburg Confession. There are things about the Catholic Chruch that Lutherans reject; there are a lot more things with which we are in agreement!

When protestants give a blanket condemnation of Catholicism they pretty much are also giving a blanket condemnation of Lutherans, Orthodox and Anglicans.

 

[1watchman]

One last quick note here: I value the original paper as quite good; and I am not at all occupied with whether Catholics or Lutherans or Orthodox this or that, or even Protestantism is more right. I just share what the Bible shows for God's intended testimony in the world, for those who might be searching for truth, and commend all others to God for His mercies and help.

 

[maryofoxford]

One last quick note here: I value the original paper as quite good; and I am not at all occupied with whether Catholics or Lutherans or Orthodox this or that, or even Protestantism is more right. I just share what the Bible shows for God's intended testimony in the world, for those who might be searching for truth, and commend all others to God for His mercies and help.

You're not at all occupied with whether Catholics...this or that?? Hhhmmm, than that would explain all of the references in your original post regarding what the author falsely believes the RCC believes. The very post you just said you value. So, if I understand you correctly, you then value his false accusation of your "neighbor"? Or has your church decided to reinterpret "neighbor" as only the members of your church?

More than that though, you continued to write lies about the RCC (my faith), and now claim that you don't care about the people you've written repeated lies about! I'm sorry, but would you kindly point out in the Bible where our Lord taught that? My poor Catholic upbringing didn't teach me that part of Jesus' teachings. Perhaps that was added later when God "reinvented" his church. You might want to consider whether you were actually hearing from the one true God, and not god. Satan is very good at doing a fine imitation for those who want to let their own selfish pride lead the way.

I do know this. The Catholic Church was present from the very beginning of the Church; going all the way back to Jesus Christ, it's founder. The records are there to prove it. I don't know what you offer as proof of the Catholic Church starting around 500 AD, but I'd like to see it. I can show you proof of it being called by that name in 180AD, and possibly earlier. I also have proof of apostolic succession being taught through the laying on of hands from the Bible onward; and the apostles having taught the Church not to follow anyone other than the Bishop, "for where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church."

As far as Bible-only faith. Not so sure that you'd like to stick with that, because in the Bible is written that we are to follow unwritten Tradition. So what is this unwritten Tradition that you are to follow, and how exactly do you follow it, if you can't follow anything but what is written in the Bible?? Then you have those nasty problems with things like the Trinity, that is never mentioned in the Bible, Sunday worship, not there either, etc. Oh yes, and when the Bible tells you that if you have any disputes that you should take it to "the Church", which church did they mean?? Your church, which wasn't even invented yet, or some other protestant church (still not around when that was written), or the one and only Christian Church which was the Catholic Church. Who at the time was headed in Rome by the Bishop, who was Peter? Yes, that is what it says too, but you'd have to know the Latin and ancient Greek words, not to mention some Aramaic for the terms we have now translated into present day English.

I'm not ignorant of the church of the Brethren, because my father was raised in that church. I have to say that how I was treated because of that faith has left some bad scars on my life, and it left some bad ones on my dad's as well. If God is love, and Jesus taught us to love one another, it's so strange that the Brethren are so busy hurting people in the name of love. I never heard of Jesus doing anything of that nature, or even worrying that He might make someone feel too good about themselves.

I once again recommend to you to stop worrying about proselytizing by leading people over to your own websites where you can try to convert them, and instead concern yourself with finding out what it was that you accused the RCC of believing that is a lie! To say that you don't care what we believe when you clearly do, since you made a point of criticizing us by name so many times, is certainly insincere at best. So why don't you address me with what you've actually accused my church of believing?

Hoping you'll do the right thing.
Mary

 

[1watchman]

Please don't be alarmed, Mary, for in your exaggerations you exceed what was stated in the OP. To do "the right thing" as you say, is to speak truthfully which I believe the writer has done. The teachers among the RC religion I have talked with admit to abuses and "tyranny" among the RC religion during the Middle Ages, but of course they claim the religion has changed since then ---and was due to unrest.

That unrest was the Protestant Reformation Movement which forced some of their changes, and introduced a break-away in circa 1500 to teach the clear Gospel message and much Bible reading. The OP shows something of the continued reformation in circa 1800 with a return to Bible-only, which should be the desire of all true believers in Christ. It shows the importance of taking "all the counsel of God" as the Apostles taught. The OP offers a comprehensive view of God's work to return saints to His Word.

I hope this will help your great concerns. Look up always!

 

[maryofoxford]

Some Thoughts On Esteeming God's Revival
By Robert DeWitt, 10/08​

Sometimes questions are raised as to how one can know the fellowship that began in 1827 was a work of God, and how one can know an assembly today is true to that. It is certainly important that we endeavor to do that, and seek always to obey and honor the Lord in His universal testimony. I believe several things will help one in this, and we need to look at the beginning as shown in the Word of God (Acts 2:41-42 and the Epistles), as well as church history:

maryofoxford: [So far I agree with no problem.]

1. Appreciating God's work of revival out of man's failures will please God and honor Him. Any serious study of church history will show the decline after the apostolic period and the rise of ceremony, rituals and rules, a hierarchy, and a sectarian spirit. That can be viewed through the rise of the Roman Catholic Religion in about 500 A.D., and the Protestant Reformation in the 1500's.

maryofoxford: [There has never been a need for God to "revive" His work out of man's failures with the Church, because our Lord Jesus Christ sent to His church the "Councelor" "to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him..." "I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world will see me no more, but you will see me; because I live, you will live also." And again, "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." (Jn 14:15-29) Also, Jesus our Lord promised "I am with you ALWAYS, to the close of the age." (Matt 28:20).]

After the revival of the true gospel message in circa 1500, when the tyranny of the RC religion was broken, the invention of printing allowed the Bible to begin to circulate everywhere. God then moved to revive Church Truth in the early 1800's, which restored the truth of the Word and the liberty of the Holy Spirit. This ministry was not being taught in the world and had been lost under the tyranny of the Roman papacy.

maryofoxford: ['the tyranny of the RC religion'?? If you'd read your history books, you'd find out that in the 1500's the Catholics were being persecuted in Britain, because the King had outlawed Catholism! Catholics were being brutalized and killed! Was being a Catholic illegal because the Catholic Church was evil, NO! It was because the Pope refused to allow the king to divorce his wife, so that he could marry her sister!] Trust me, God doesn't depend on man to carry out His message, as if without us, He couldn't get the message out. When the Lord sends forth His word, guided and protected by the Holy Spirit, Satan will not stop it for a century and a half! That would mean that Jesus was a liar and had in fact abandoned His Church to Satan, and allowed the Devil to sway His Church away from Him. I don't recall that being part of His promise?]

Some sound Bible and book distributors can provide material on the history and the ministry that came forth from those led of God, and direct one to a scriptural gathering (see addresses below). A study of Miller's Church History--original edition, will also help.

maryofoxford: [Why Miller's, when we have the words of the early Christians themselves??]

3. Searching the scriptures is essential, of course, for we should not want to go contrary to the plain Word of God. There we see His mind that we be of "one accord" and "together", and with "no schism" in the testimony, following the order given, as in Acts and the epistles.

maryofoxford: [Hhhmmm! So that "no schism" thing, that only applied after your church formed? Because when I read that in the Bible I was under the impression that it meant from the beginning?!]

4. Looking at the origin of a gathering is fundamental. Is it a division group? Was the gathering founded on a man and his will? Is it sectarian; i.e. taking a name, or otherwise setting themselves apart from the scriptural way, and establishing teaching and practices to suit themselves? The form of gathering is not alone the truth of gathering. "The foundation of God standeth sure" (II Tim.2:19)

maryofoxford: [Same as my previous statement]

5. God's government must be esteemed. This is critical and yet so hard for many to accept. We need spiritual discernment. God's government in His assembly is established with overseers that He appoints to uphold and maintain the truth. No man is perfect, but the work is of God (see Heb.13:7 & 17). There is not always unanimity in a gathering, and "majority rule" is not at all God's way.

maryofoxford: [Funny, that's what the Dogma's of the Catholic Church say! Overseer is English for "Bishop". So why is it that this only went into effect (according to your church) 1800 years after the Catholic Church was set up this way by the apostles?]

7. Acting on the truth that is revealed, rather than following friends and a popular path. "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). Many saints do not appreciate that sectarianism is wrong and dishonoring to God, and they feel free to go off and set up their own table and gather a following whenever they please. They will have to answer for that.

maryofoxford: [Still wondering why this doesn't apply to your church?]

ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS ON GATHERING​

Most real Christians are interested in redemption way and spiritual life, but do not think much about church truth. Here are some essential questions:

A. Should one care about church truth?

B. Should one care enough to learn what the church is and should be, according to the Word of God? This requires one to lay aside traditions, rituals, programs, activities, organization; and perhaps friends and relatives (Matt.10:37), to follow the scriptural instruction.

maryofoxford: [But, if the Sacred Traditions that the Bible has said we are to follow, involve any of these activities, like Baptism, or to a lesser extent, instructions by the presbyters (aka priests), then according to the Bible we ARE to follow those instructions; right??]

C. Should one appreciate that God has called believers to express the "one body of Christ" in the world, be of "likemind", of "one accord", and "together" according to His Word?

maryofoxford: [Yes! Because the Church is the Body of Christ!]

D. Should one know (or want to know) about the revival by God in 1827----i.e. a work of God to recover His testimony? To appreciate the movement in the early 1800's one needs to be able to see it as God's revival of His testimony lost after the Apostles' time.


maryofoxford: [I think I already addressed this. No, one shouldn't want to know about the "revival by God in 1827 because it caused yet another schism in the Body of Christ, His Church; which as he previously noted, isn't good. Jesus was and still is, with His Church, as it's head. Therefore He didn't lose His own testimony through His "body's" carelessness.]

E. There continues to be a faithful testimony (allowing for human failure) which one can know.

maryofoxford: [Amen!]


Jesus is altogether "...the Way, the Truth, and the Life" as He said. These things are all a matter of individual exercise, and God's testimony cannot be faulted for our individual failures.

maryofoxford: [Amen! But, Christ still didn't let men (aka: His Body) lose His Church.]

***********************************************​

Post Script: Please note, friends, that such posts as this are intended to offer some thoughts to be of help to readers, and I intend that the contents are scriptural, honoring to God, and in a godly spirit

[Odd, how "godly" isn't capitalized? Perhaps the Lord was sending you a message??]


I hope this helps you see where the insults to my faith were in this writing. Also where the errors were in the truth of my faith. (and I can provide proof of this, if even more is needed.)

In the peace of Christ, Mary

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Please don't be alarmed, Mary, for in your exaggerations you exceed what was stated in the OP. To do "the right thing" as you say, is to speak truthfully which I believe the writer has done. The teachers among the RC religion I have talked with admit to abuses and "tyranny" among the RC religion during the Middle Ages, but of course they claim the religion has changed since then ---and was due to unrest.

That unrest was the Protestant Reformation Movement which forced some of their changes, and introduced a break-away in circa 1500 to teach the clear Gospel message and much Bible reading. The OP shows something of the continued reformation in circa 1800 with a return to Bible-only, which should be the desire of all true believers in Christ. It shows the importance of taking "all the counsel of God" as the Apostles taught. The OP offers a comprehensive view of God's work to return saints to His Word.

I hope this will help your great concerns. Look up always!

We need also to keep in mind that Bible-only means different things to different Christians. In reformed protestantism it often means "Bible-only; excluding all other things" whereas in Lutheranism, "Bible-only" or Sola Scriptura means excluding only those things prohibited or at odds with Scripture. Tradition(s) is not bad in and of itself when held in the light of Scripture.