splish- splash
Team- Early Interventions
- Dec 2, 2019
- 1,751
- 1,406
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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
It is exactly how it worked in the NT.Protestants have to claim that the Church is "invisible" to try and maintain legitimacy as "the Church"--but this is biblically untenable
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., 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).
And they predicted that apostasy would arise within the group.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).
In Matt 16 Jesus predicts that he will be crucified - He does not command that He be crucified -- though some may suggest that.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.
Most Christian denominations do in fact have a visible organization - as it turns out.Protestants have to claim that the Church is "invisible" to try and maintain legitimacy as "the Church"
1. There are two of Christ's disciples that are recorded in the NT - as having died. Judas, and James the brother of John.--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).
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.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.
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.
"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 powerfulAlthough 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.
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 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.
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.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.
And they stand in stark contrast to the church of scripture.Most Christian denominations do in fact have a visible organization - as it turns out.
Your argument is interesting, and appears to amount to: “We only have one example of it in scripture, therefore it isn’t scriptural”The only example we have of "apostolic succession" in the NT - is for Judas. None for James.
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
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.The Great Controversy contains too many factual errors and distortions to be taken seriously as an authority on history.
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.
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.The fact remains that There was only one denomination until the protesting catholics broke away in the 1500s (Luther etc).
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.
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.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
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.
Me too.I have read the book Bob.
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.I know what it says. If she wanted to counter Catholic Church teaching, that is her right
Protestant history in countering Catholic teaching is pretty extensive., but she can’t even get the teaching right in order to counter it.
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.
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.They were a cult that taught counter to the word of God and led many souls astray.
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..
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.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.
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.
To say the least, neither the Cathars nor the Albigensians were sincere folks who opened their Bibles
| 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
|
test quote
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?