The Lord never intended for denominations

[splish- splash]

A number of books exist on the early roots of the Christian church and how denominations came about - over time, and why.

For example: The Great Controversy

 

[parousia70]

Protestants have to claim that the Church is "invisible" to try and maintain legitimacy as "the Church"--but this is biblically untenable, for the Church of the Holy Scriptures is not invisible but consists of a clear apostolic succession of ordained bishops that hold authority by virtue of their apostolic office (a calling that individuals may or may not live up to, as Judas demonstrated).

The governmental structure of the New Israel is related to the Divine and historic government that existed before it. Bishops/shepherds were common names given to Israel's tribal leadership. So also "elder" was a common office of leadership over Israel. There were the kings of the monarchy, and there were prime ministers in Israel, second in command only to the reigning monarch. In a word, Israel always had a divinely instituted government, and this government was re-constututed under the New Covenant King of Israel in the first century. In the granting of the "Keys" to Peter (Matt 16:18-19/Isa 22:15-25), the appointment of the new 12 patriarchs (Matt 19:28; 10:1-4; Rev 21:12-14), and the ordination of bishops/elders and deacons, Jesus re-created Israel under the terms and conditions of the New Covenant order. Christ re-instituted the familiar leadership offices from Israel's history, and established the Twelve who expanded the Bishopric/Episcopate for New Israel. They went about ordaining men to offices in every city by the laying on of hands, and commissioned those appointees to continue this same practice also by the laying on of hands (a cardinal NT doctrine according to Hebrews 6:1-2). The establishment of the authorized bishopric can be traced throughout the New Testament scriptures, and is especially highlighted in Acts and the letters to the Bishops Titus and Timothy. The authorized government of New Israel is evidenced in Holy Scripture, and was maintained from Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus and those that followed.

Quite simply, God created a visible Church and who can deny it from scripture? Protestantism, on the other hand, is 20,000 or more denoms that teach a myriad of different things, do not recognize each other's authority or doctrines, do not work together, compete against each other, etc.etc. It seems impossible to me that anyone could claim protestantism as a legitimate form of the Church of scripture (or history).

 

[BobRyan]

Protestants have to claim that the Church is "invisible" to try and maintain legitimacy as "the Church"--but this is biblically untenable

It is exactly how it worked in the NT.
Heb 11 shows a continuation from OT saints/church to NT saints church -

39 And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.​

​

Rom 11 shows that continuation as saints in both OT and NT - grafted into the same tree

17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.​

​

This is not because a duly elected High Priest of the OT appointed Christ, or appointed Paul or Appointed the 12. No -- rather it is a continuation "of the faith" - pure faith regardless of the apostasy of the high priest at the time of Christ.
As we see in Romans 9

6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants shall be named.” 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.​

, for the Church of the Holy Scriptures is not invisible but consists of a clear apostolic succession of ordained bishops that hold authority by virtue of their apostolic office (a calling that individuals may or may not live up to, as Judas demonstrated).

Just like the One True Nation Church started by God at Sinai had God appointed priests with a divinely ordained succession of priests... still existing at the time of Christ.

Take a gooood look at the New Covenant in Jer 31:31-34 -- AND ALSO -- in Heb 8:6-12 ... unchanged... verbatim the same.

Jer 31 (and also Heb 8)
31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. 33 “For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord: “I will put My law within them and write it on their heart; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their wrongdoing, and their sin I will no longer remember.”

Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God.

Christ re-instituted the familiar leadership offices from Israel's history, and established the Twelve who expanded the Bishopric/Episcopate for New Israel. They went about ordaining men to offices in every city by the laying on of hands, and commissioned those appointees to continue this same practice also by the laying on of hands (a cardinal NT doctrine according to Hebrews 6:1-2).

And they predicted that apostasy would arise within the group.

Acts 20:
27 For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God. 28 Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore, be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears.

2 Thess 2: A great apostasy takes place before Christ's return according to the Apostles
Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, regarding the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit, or a message, or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 No one is to deceive you in any way! For it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction

2 Cor 11:12 But what I am doing I will also continue to do, so that I may eliminate the opportunity from those who want an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.

So that sort of apostasy from within feature - is in fact a reality even in the first century.

1 Tim 1:3 Just as I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, to remain on at Ephesus so that you would instruct certain people not to teach strange doctrines, 4 nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to useless speculation rather than advance the plan of God, which is by faith, so I urge you now.


The apostasy began taking root in the first century - according to the Apostle John
3 John 1:10 For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with malicious words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brothers either, and he forbids those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.

 

[BobRyan]

This comports well with an understanding of an impotent God who, although He might foreknow something will happen, is utterly powerless to change or alter it in any way.

In Matt 16 Jesus predicts that he will be crucified - He does not command that He be crucified -- though some may suggest that.

In Luke 19 we have this --

41 When He approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it, 42 saying, “If you had known on this day, even you, the conditions for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. 43 For the days will come upon you when your enemies will put up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, 44 and they will level you to the ground, and throw down your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation.”​

Some will call this "the impotent Jesus" or the "impotent God" because they cannot reconcile free will - with an all knowing God all powerful God who soveriengly chooses this system of free will.

Same with Is 5:3-4

3 “And now, you inhabitants of Jerusalem and people of Judah,​

Judge between Me and My vineyard.​

4 What more was there to do for My vineyard that I have not done in it?​

Why, when I expected it to produce good grapes did it produce worthless ones?​

Again you will find some who read that verse and then start commenting about - the "impotent God" -- all because they cannot reconcile free will - with an all knowing God all powerful God who soveriengly chooses this system of free will.

The same with Genesis 6:

5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of mankind was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. 6 So the Lord was sorry that He had made mankind on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 Then the Lord said, “I will wipe out mankind whom I have created from the face of the land; mankind, and animals as well, and crawling things, and the birds of the sky. For I am sorry that I have made them.”​

Again you will find some who read that verse and then start commenting about - the "impotent God" -- all because they cannot reconcile free will - with an all knowing God all powerful God who soveriengly chooses this system of free will.

In 2 Peter 3 "God is not willing that ANY should perish but that all should come to repentance"
Yet in Matt 7 - Christ's all-knowing eye predicts that the "many" are on the wide road and go to perdition and only the FEW will be saved.

Here again you will find some who read those verses and then start commenting about - the "impotent God" -- all because they cannot reconcile free will - with an all knowing God all powerful God who soveriengly chooses this system of free will.

 

[BobRyan]

Protestants have to claim that the Church is "invisible" to try and maintain legitimacy as "the Church"

Most Christian denominations do in fact have a visible organization - as it turns out.
None of them are headquartered in Israel in the first century but all claim that line of origin since all are Christian. The first century church knew nothing about having its headquarters in Rome or any other place but Jerusalem and then later Antioch.

--but this is biblically untenable, for the Church of the Holy Scriptures is not invisible but consists of a clear apostolic succession

1. There are two of Christ's disciples that are recorded in the NT - as having died. Judas, and James the brother of John.

2. The only example we have of "apostolic succession" in the NT - is for Judas. None for James.

3. The James of Acts 15 who seems to be the deciding vote - is the brother of Jesus - and never was a disciple at all nor is there any record of appointing him to be an apostle in the place of someone else.

of ordained bishops that hold authority by virtue of their apostolic office (a calling that individuals may or may not live up to, as Judas demonstrated).

4. There is no "head of the church" title in the NT for someone other than Christ. And the criteria for an "Apostle" is set out in Acts 1 - it has to be someone alive at the time of Christ's ministry who was trained by Him. Paul being the exception to that rule.

5. In Gal 2 - Peter is intimidated by the fact that "men from James" came to town and so he changed his behavior towards the gentile Christians because he was intimidated by "men from James" coming from Jerusalem to where Peter was working. Paul calls Peter out on that.

What we don't see in the NT - is someone calling Peter the head of the Christian church.
What we don't see in the NT - is anyone having an apostolic succession event associated with him apart from Judas.
They also had no "college of cardinals" or anything like it.

But they did have elders and apostles and pastors.

 

[bbbbbbb]

In Matt 16 Jesus predicts that he will be crucified - He does not command that He be crucified -- though some may suggest that.

In Luke 19 we have this --

41 When He approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it, 42 saying, “If you had known on this day, even you, the conditions for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. 43 For the days will come upon you when your enemies will put up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, 44 and they will level you to the ground, and throw down your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation.”​

Some will call this "the impotent Jesus" or the "impotent God" because they cannot reconcile free will - with an all knowing God.

Same with Is 5:3-4

3 “And now, you inhabitants of Jerusalem and people of Judah,​

Judge between Me and My vineyard.​

4 What more was there to do for My vineyard that I have not done in it?​

Why, when I expected it to produce good grapes did it produce worthless ones?​

Again you will find some who read that verse and then start commenting about - the "impotent God" -- all because they cannot reconcile free will - with an all knowing God.

The same with Genesis 6:

5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of mankind was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. 6 So the Lord was sorry that He had made mankind on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 Then the Lord said, “I will wipe out mankind whom I have created from the face of the land; mankind, and animals as well, and crawling things, and the birds of the sky. For I am sorry that I have made them.”​

Again you will find some who read that verse and then start commenting about - the "impotent God" -- all because they cannot reconcile free will - with an all knowing God.

In 2 Peter 3 "God is not willing that ANY should perish but that all should come to repentance"
Yet in Matt 7 - Christ's all-knowing eye predicts that the "many" are on the wide road and go to perdition and only the FEW will be saved.

Here again you will find some who read those verses and then start commenting about - the "impotent God" -- all because they cannot reconcile free will - with an all knowing God.

Although you, as well as many other Arminians, reject the doctrine of omnipotence in relation to God, there are innumerable verses, beginning with Genesis 1 which portray God as being omnipotent.

 

[BobRyan]

In Matt 16 Jesus predicts that he will be crucified - He does not command that He be crucified -- though some may suggest that.

In Luke 19 we have this --

41 When He approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it, 42 saying, “If you had known on this day, even you, the conditions for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. 43 For the days will come upon you when your enemies will put up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, 44 and they will level you to the ground, and throw down your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation.”​

Some will call this "the impotent Jesus" or the "impotent God" because they cannot reconcile free will - with an all knowing God all powerful God who soveriengly chooses this system of free will.

Although you, as well as many other Arminians, reject the doctrine of omnipotence in relation to God, there are innumerable verses, beginning with Genesis 1 which portray God as being omnipotent.

"all powerful" as noted above... so then "omnipotent" the very thing you claim is being ignored. It is because your doctrine does not allow God to make that sovereign choice that you come to that point of confusion. Thus you do not deal with a single text I quoted in that post - rather you claim that to allow God His sovereign choice is to discredit Him as all powerful

Some will call this (text just quoted...and then ignored) "the impotent Jesus" or the "impotent God" because they cannot reconcile free will - with an all knowing God all powerful God who soveriengly chooses this system of free will.

 

[bbbbbbb]

"all powerful" as noted above... so then "omnipotent" the very thing you claim is being ignored. It is because your doctrine does not allow God to make that sovereign choice that you come to that point of confusion. Thus you do not deal with a single text I quoted in that post - rather you claim that to allow God His sovereign choice is to discredit Him as all powerful

Some will call this (text just quoted...and then ignored) "the impotent Jesus" or the "impotent God" because they cannot reconcile free will - with an all knowing God all powerful God who soveriengly chooses this system of free will.

I do understand the logic of Arminianism. It is, by any impartial observer, a very logical system. In it God, who knows all that will happen in the universe of His creation, chose to not only create the heavens, but also the earth and all its life. He chose to create Adam and Eve and gave them free will, which, according to His foreknowledge, they abused and suffered the consequences (spiritual death followed by physical death). Later on, God perceived that Noah and his family had exercised their free wills and were living righteously. So God intervened in history and flooded the earth, leaving only Noah and a fully representation of all species of animate life, who had exercised their free wills and boarded the ark (although it is questionable as to whether any animate beings on earth other than humans have free will). Moving along, Abraham exercised his free will and God rewarded him, overlooking his really significant sin. Then, multiple generations later we have Jacob exercising his free will with significantly sinful activity such as stealing his brother's inheritance, which God rewarded by making him second in command in Egypt. Then about 400 years later comes Moses who, despite murdering another man, not to mention other significant acts of disobedience, was permitted to exercise his free will and become the leader of the nation of Israel. God then decided to make a covenant with those folks, giving them a Law which they could never keep, but holding out promises for them if they did choose to obey the Law perfectly. Then came the monarchy, which God clearly expressed his distaste for. However, we get that amazing muderderous adulterer, David, on the throne who is blessed by God and called the man after God's own heart. God promised him that his physical descendants would occupy the throne in Jerusalem forever. That didn't last terribly long until God perceived that Israel, as well as Judah, weren't living up to His Law. So he placidly sat back and allowed them to exercise their free wills and go into captivity for their sin, thus ending the Davidic monarchy in Jerusalem. However, God foreknew that His Son, Jesus Christ would come on the scene in the fullness of time to restore the kingdom. Jesus made the offer of the kingdom to Israel, who had chosen to become a vassal state of Rome. He also promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. However, the leaders of Israel chose to crucify Him via the Roman authority. He was crucified, dead, and buried, but on the third day He rose from the dead, spent some time teaching the Apostles and ascended into heaven, promising to return soon. The Apostles got to work and spread the good news of the spiritual kingdom of God under its spiritual Davidic King, Jesus Christ, predicated upon keeping a revised form of the Law called the New Covenant. In fairly short order, the Church, exercising its free will, chose to go south, rejecting the New Covenant with its terms and adding all manner of curious beliefs and practices. God, having done all that He was going to do, merely sat by, watching humanity wallow in sin and unbelief. Then Mr. Miller popped on the scene in the early nineteenth century, predicting the precise day and time when Jesus was going to return. When that failed to come to pass and he was discredited, many of his followers went their way. However, Mrs. White then came on the scene, claiming that God had given her the gift of prophecy, although, in truth, it was the reward of her having exercised her free will. She reinvigorated the cause and, as they say, the rest is history.

All of this, at its best, is borderline Deism. God does His part and leaves the rest up to humanity, but intervenes when things go south.

 

[parousia70]

4. There is no "head of the church" title in the NT for someone other than Christ.
What we don't see in the NT - is someone calling Peter the head of the Christian church.

Jesus clearly gave St. Peter "the keys of the kingdom" (Mt 16:18-19) and He didn't invent the notion of "giving the Keys of the kingdom" right there on the spot... it is rooted in the Old testament practice of what the King of Israel Bestowed upon His prime Minister.

Read Isaiah 22:15-24 to gain the scriptural understanding of what it means for the King of Israel to bestow the keys of the kingdom to His prime minister.

Pope Clement of Rome (late 80s AD) wrote a letter to the Corinthians, and the letter was in response to THEIR appeal to him to solve a serious doctrinal division they were having. So, even in the late first century there were apostolic Churches that were making appeals to the Bishop of Rome to settle grave disputes.

The fact remains that There was only one denomination until the protesting catholics broke away in the 1500s (Luther etc).

No protestant denomination traces its history back to before about AD 1500. So, we know for a fact that no modern protestant sect has apostolic origins. Yet the catholic sect does, for it originated in the first century and continued in unbroken existence down to our times.

It has continued for 20 centuries now, and its doctrines have never changed. No other organization or government has lasted even beyond a few centuries.

Francis is, also without question, the 266th successor of the Prime Minister of the King, Bishop of the Church of Rome, an apostolic Church which appears in our bibles.

Apostolic Succession is historical and biblical. It can be traced by history, going all the way back generation by generation to Jesus. This is precisely why the Catholic priesthood is the one Jesus instituted 20 centuries ago. This is NOT at all to say those outside of this order are not Christians, but only to say that God has created a governmental order to the Church, and this has not been followed by protestants who broke away from the government of the Church and denied it existed any longer since "the papacy became the endtimes antichrist" (as Luther falsely taught). Obviously, the total and complete chaos of the protestant world is the result of this breaking away from the ordained Church government instituted by Christ.

 

[parousia70]

Most Christian denominations do in fact have a visible organization - as it turns out.

And they stand in stark contrast to the church of scripture.

The Church of scripture is ONE united ecclesial body (Eph 4:3-4; Eph 4:13-16; Jn 17:21; Mt 16:18) without schismatic divisions (1 Cor 12:25; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10; Jude 1:19; Gal 5:20; 3 John 1:9-10), with ONE teaching for ALL the churches (Acts 15:22-23,25,28/Acts 16:4-5; 1 Tim 1:3; 1 Cor 1:10; Eph 4:5; Jude 1:3), and one bishopric authorized of and by the apostles (Titus 1:5) by the laying on of hands in ordination (Heb 6:2; 2 Tim 1:6; 1 Tim 4:14; Titus 1:5), sharing ministers back and forth among all churches (1 Cor 16:3; Rom 16:1,3,9,21,23; Phil 2:19,25; Titus 3:12), receiving one another in fellowship and in greeting (Rom 15:5-7; Rom 16:16; Col 4:10,12,14; 3 John 1:9-10), where excommunication removes individuals from this one body (Matt 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:1-2,4-5), and which existed from St. Peter and the apostles unto today (Matt 16:18-19; Eph 3:21).

Protestantism, in Contrast, is an endless schism of divisions with multiple different teachings and authority structures, with no effective means of excommunication and no traceable Apostolic Lineage.

The only example we have of "apostolic succession" in the NT - is for Judas. None for James.

Your argument is interesting, and appears to amount to: “We only have one example of it in scripture, therefore it isn’t scriptural”

 

[boughtwithaprice]

A number of books exist on the early roots of the Christian church and how denominations came about - over time, and why.

For example: The Great Controversy

The Great Controversy contains too many factual errors and distortions to be taken seriously as an authority on history. I would suggest reading a different book, or at least investigating its claims prior to presenting it as a book worth reading

 

[BobRyan]

The Great Controversy contains too many factual errors and distortions to be taken seriously as an authority on history.

It takes historical statements already published by well known authorities and summarizes them. Some of those historic statements do not flatter a given denomination - so one might expect that denomination to object to the historic authorities that note those inconvenient historic details.

It reviews a number of protesting Catholic reformers (Calvin, Luther, Wycliffe, Huss, Jerome..) - very positively. So a denomination determined to cast shade on them will not be inclined to approve those parts of Christian history.

I think that part is easy to see.

But the contribution the book makes goes far beyond simply highlighting accurate statements of a few historic authorities.

 

[BobRyan]

Although you, as well as many other Arminians, reject the doctrine of omnipotence in relation to God

That is the opposite of what I claim in my post above as we can all see - #84

details matter.

 

[prodromos]

Pope Clement of Rome (late 80s AD) wrote a letter to the Corinthians, and the letter was in response to THEIR appeal to him to solve a serious doctrinal division they were having. So, even in the late first century there were apostolic Churches that were making appeals to the Bishop of Rome to settle grave disputes.

Corinth was a Roman colony in the middle of Greece. The Church there was established by Peter and Paul, so had strong ties to where both Apostles spent the last period of their lives. Clement had been a close companion of Paul and may have accompanied the Apostle on his visits to Corinth. There was regular trade with Rome as the Diolkos at Corinth was used to transport ships and cargo across the narrow peninsula in order to avoid the treacherous conditions between the Ionian and Aegean seas, which in turn meant regular correspondence.

The fact remains that There was only one denomination until the protesting catholics broke away in the 1500s (Luther etc).

Patently false. You have the Church of the East seperating in 431 after the Council of Ephesus, then you have the Oriental Orthodox forming after the Council of Chalcedon, then in 1054 you have your own communion forming after Cardinal Humbert laid a litany of false charges against the Church in Constantinople on the altar at Hagia Sophia.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

It takes historical statements already published by well known authorities and summarizes them. Some of those historic statements do not flatter a given denomination - so one might expect that denomination to object to the historic authorities that note those inconvenient historic details.

I think that part is easy to see.

But the contribution the book makes goes far beyond simply highlighting accurate statements of a few historic authorities.

I have read the book Bob. I know what it says. If she wanted to counter Catholic Church teaching, that is her right, but she can’t even get the teaching right in order to counter it. She completely distorts the teaching on indulgences and tries to generate an emotional response. That is not prophesy, that is political rhetoric, and more precisely a straw man argument. I would expect more of a purported prophetess, as God does not need to engage in logical fallacies. His truth is eternal.
She also gets the history of the Albigensians or Cathars wrong. They were not poor Bible believing Christians that were persecuted by the Catholic Church. They were a cult that taught counter to the word of God and led many souls astray. Their main teaching was that spirit is good, matter is bad. That is a dualistic teaching that is more luciferian than Christian. For her to speak well of them shows that she does not know what she is talking about .
That is not prophesy, that is a smear. Again, I would expect more of a purported prophetess, as God does not need to smear, he speaks the truth and lies scatter.
Oh and I know what happened to the Cathars.(sp) It’s where we get the term Catharsis or cathartic, which means complete emptying, because of the famous quote of “kill them all, God knows those that are His” we can factually go over that history if you want, but it certainly was not the intention of Mrs White, which is why I do not recommend her book

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

The Great Controversy contains too many factual errors and distortions to be taken seriously as an authority on history. I would suggest reading a different book, or at least investigating its claims prior to presenting it as a book worth reading

As a former Lutheran and one of my classes was on the Reformation, the section on Luther is so distorted it is laughable. Roland Bainton, the author of "Here I Stand" must be rolling in his grave.

 

[BobRyan]

It takes historical statements already published by well known authorities and summarizes them. Some of those historic statements do not flatter a given denomination - so one might expect that denomination to object to the historic authorities that note those inconvenient historic details.

It reviews a number of protesting Catholic reformers (Calvin, Luther, Wycliffe, Huss, Jerome..) - very positively. So a denomination determined to cast shade on them will not be inclined to approve those parts of Christian history.

I think that part is easy to see.

But the contribution the book makes goes far beyond simply highlighting accurate statements of a few historic authorities.

I have read the book Bob.

Me too.

I know what it says. If she wanted to counter Catholic Church teaching, that is her right

The book "Great Controversy" is a short concise history of the christian church from the time of Acts 1 through to the second coming of Christ future.

It agrees in a number of places even with the Catholic Historian - Thomas Bokenkotter's "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" .. as it turns out

, but she can’t even get the teaching right in order to counter it.

Protestant history in countering Catholic teaching is pretty extensive.

My point is that the Great Controversy is a great world class summary of that history and is read by many millions of Christians all over the world in various languages -- I don't insist that you like its approval of the Protestant Reformation. You have free will - you can object as you wish..

She also gets the history of the Albigensians or Cathars wrong.

She states that they were maligned, falsely accused etc and records of their writings were destroyed such that we only have the records of their enemies' false accusations in many cases left to us.

They were not poor Bible believing Christians that were persecuted by the Catholic Church.

Well you are free to believe that if you wish. But a lot of people do not like the idea of exterminating fellow Christians. And I think you know full well the real history of the Catholic LATERAN IV council and its call to "exterminate heretics" which did a lot to propel the "inquisition". Some of that is also in the book - perhaps you read it.

They were a cult that taught counter to the word of God and led many souls astray.

I understand that this is your view of them. Too bad the Catholic church burned their documents and teaching so we can not independently verify at such a late date. Nice to have some prophetic insight to expose details that were buried.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Me too.

The book "Great Controversy" is a short concise history of the christian church from the time of Acts 1 through to the second coming of Christ future.

It agrees in a number of places even with the Catholic Historian - Thomas Bokenkotter's "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" .. as it turns out

Protestant history in countering Catholic teaching is pretty extensive.

My point is that the Great Controversy is a great world class summary of that history and is read by many millions of Christians all over the world in various languages -- I don't insist that you like its approval of the Protestant Reformation. You have free will - you can object as you wish..

She states that they were maligned, falsely accused etc and records of their writings were destroyed such that we only have the records of their enemies' false accusations in many cases left to us.

Well you are free to believe that if you wish. But a lot of people do not like the idea of exterminating fellow Christians. And I think you know full well the real history of the Catholic LATERAN IV council and its call to "exterminate heretics" which did a lot to propel the "inquisition". Some of that is also in the book - perhaps you read it.

I understand that this is your view of them. Too bad the Catholic church burned their documents and teaching so we can not independently verify at such a late date. Nice to have some prophetic insight to expose details that were buried.

To say the least, neither the Cathars nor the Albigensians were sincere folks who opened their Bibles, read them avidly, developed proto-SDA doctrines and then were eliminated by the RCC. To mention just a couple of fallacies to that notion, virtually nobody at that time was literate, such that the laity and most of the clergy simply could not read their Latin Bibles, assuming they had any to read, which brings my second difficulty. With no printing presses, Bibles were not mass-produced, but assiduously hand copied such that most churches did not possess a copy of the Bible. The nearest monastery might have one, depending on the religious order of the monastery.

 

[parousia70]

Corinth was a Roman colony in the middle of Greece. The Church there was established by Peter and Paul, so had strong ties to where both Apostles spent the last period of their lives.

Fantastic.
But I'm not sure what you are asserting that demonstrates?
Which 1st century Churches were NOT located in the Roman empire, or had weak or non existent ties to the apostles, so we can compare?

Clement had been a close companion of Paul and may have accompanied the Apostle on his visits to Corinth. There was regular trade with Rome as the Diolkos at Corinth was used to transport ships and cargo across the narrow peninsula in order to avoid the treacherous conditions between the Ionian and Aegean seas, which in turn meant regular correspondence.

And this was not simple "coorispondance" as you appear to wish it watered down to. This was an appeal to authority to solve a doctrinal dispute.
But, perhaps you are correct and they were dead wrong to appeal to his authority to solve their dispute the way they did.
Weird.

 

[BobRyan]

To say the least, neither the Cathars nor the Albigensians were sincere folks who opened their Bibles

Your welcome to that speculation if you wish.

===================

But since you apparently wish to pursue it --

Foxe's Book of Maryrs

​

The Albigenses were Protestants who lived in the country of Albi. They were condemned in the council of Lateran by order of Pope Alexander III, but their numbers grew so rapidly that many cities were inhabited exclusively by them, and they converted several important noblemen. The Pope wanted to rid the empire of these people that he considered heretics, and so encircled the city of Beziers. No amount of compromise or discussion could pacify the troops surrounding the city. The inhabitants were told that unless the Albigenses would give up their religion and conform to the Church of Rome, there could be no mercy. The Roman Catholics living within the walls of Beziers urged the Albigenses to comply; but the Albigenses nobly answered that they would not forsake their religion. They said that God was able if He pleased to defend them; but if He would be glorified by their holding onto their faith unto death, it would be an honor for them to die for His sake. The Catholics, finding it impossible to persuade the Albigenses to surrender to the will of Rome, sent their bishop to beg the army legate to not include them in the punishment of the Albigenses. When he heard this, the legate flew into a passionate rage and declared that, “if all the city did not acknowledge their fault, they would all taste of one curse, without distinction of religion, sex, or age.”​ The inhabitants refused to yield to such terms, and consequently were fiercely attacked. Every cruelty was practiced; the groans of men dying in pools of blood were heard amid the cries of mothers, who after being brutalized by the soldiers, had their children taken from them and killed before their eyes. On July 22, 1209, the beautiful city of Beziers was destroyed by fire, the cathedral of Saint Nazaire burned with its terrified inhabitants who had taken refuge inside. All that remained was a heap of ruins. In all, 60,000 men, women, and children were murdered. More and more towns where the Albigenses lived were destroyed in a similar fashion" Albigenses | Rekindling the Reformation - Peace if Possible, Truth at All Costs ​ Adapted from John Foxe, The Book of Martyrs (London: Pickering & Inglis, no date): 23-28.

============================================ end quote

Great Controversy - Page 267. "Efforts to Suppress and Destroy the Bible.—The Council of Toulouse, which met about the time of the crusade against the Albigenses, ruled: “We prohibit laymen possessing copies of the Old and New Testament.... We forbid them most severely to have the above books in the popular vernacular.” “The Lords of the districts shall carefully seek out the heretics in dwellings, hovels, and forests, and even their underground retreats shall be entirely wiped out.”—Concil. Tolosanum, Pope Gregory IX, Anno. Chr. 1229. Canons 14 and 2. This Council sat at the time of the crusade against the Albigenses. GC 687.6
==================== end quote

Great Controversy: p 271
Century after century the blood of the saints had been shed. While the Waldenses laid down their lives upon the mountains of Piedmont “for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ,” similar witness to the truth had been borne by their brethren, the Albigenses of France. In the days of the Reformation its disciples had been put to death with horrible tortures. King and nobles, highborn women and delicate maidens, the pride and chivalry of the nation, had feasted their eyes upon the agonies of the martyrs of Jesus. The brave Huguenots, battling for those rights which the human heart holds most sacred, had poured out their blood on many a hard-fought field. The Protestants were counted as outlaws, a price was set upon their heads, and they were hunted down like wild beasts. GC 271.2

=================

No wonder the Pope issued an extremely late - "apology" to the Waldenses in 2022

Pope asks pardon from Waldensian Protestants for past persecution

Pope Francis asked forgiveness on Monday for the Roman Catholic Church's "non-Christian and inhumane" treatment in the past of the Waldensians, a tiny Protestant movement the Vatican tried to exterminate in the 15th century.

www.reuters.com

In that statement Pope Francis said "“On behalf of the Catholic Church, I ask forgiveness for the un-Christian and even inhumane positions and actions taken against you historically,” he said. “In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, forgive us!”

See LATERAN IV call for "Extermination of Heretics" for more insight into what he is talking about.

===============================

Even more to the point - the Pope admits to a little something comparing past actions of the Church he heads in its past "Holy wars" to the current criminal acts against civilians in Eukraine committed by Russia.

Pope to Russian Patriarch: 'Church uses language of Jesus, not of politics' - Vatican News

Pope Francis holds a video call with Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill to discuss the war in Ukraine, and calls on Church leaders to use the language ...

www.vaticannews.va

“There was a time, even in our Churches, when people spoke of a holy war or a just war. Today we cannot speak in this manner. A Christian awareness of the importance of peace has developed.” Pope Francis (Vatican News: March 2022)​

​

test quote

​