this is a boring forum

[archaeologist2]

there is no discussion nor questions no exploration into the past. one of the biggest complaints i have come across from soem christian leaders is that believers do NOT know their history and they do not care.

it is no wonder most christians end up defeated by the secular world as non-believers no history and even church history better than christians do and believers just do not know how to respond.

even in archaeology too many christians listen to the wrong people and they get confused or their faith is undermined and they fall away because there is no one to counteract the work of the secular 'expert'.

christians need to become educated in their past, in whom to listen to, and how to rebut comments made by the secular world. one must be able to have confidence to stand in their faith even when attacked by those outside the church, they can't do that if they do not know anything.

the secular world has nomotivation to prove the Bible right thus there is no point in listening to them even if they have had 40-50 years in the field. their source is from evil and one must be able to spot the difference and be able to respond correctly without losing ground or one's faith.

there are many archaeologists who started out as believers but because they put their eyes on physical evidence NOT God, they turned away and left their faith. this is not good. one has to be able to withstand such things and keep their faith in God inspite of the lack of physical evidence.

and the only way to do that is to become educated in what God has done, who He is and be able to see the difference between the secular world and God's ways. the secular world wants physical evidence to compell them to believe---it doesn't work that way.

God's creation -- God's rules.

 

[flaglady]

And what of the many archeologists and scientists whose faiths are stronger as a result of the things they have found? Sorry, friend, but that comment is rather too general to be meaningful!

 

[MrPolo]

Is the forum boring or just doesn't delve into Christian history enough? I'll agree with you on the latter!

 

[BrendanMark]

I have to agree, for the most part, but often find discussions of history turn into "I'm right; you're wrong/my denomination is right; yours is from the devil" confrontations fairly regularly. I think the format of internet "discussion" creates an adversarial environment ipso facto, even with the best of Christian intentions and prolific use of smileys and such.

I also think some folk are uncomfortable with the idea that the history of Christianity is more one of sinners than saints, more schisms than reunifications, than a manifest expression of God's love and Christ's saving grace on earth. The sinful humanity of Christianity and history is in contrast to the ideals professed as well as the person of Christ and his Gospel message - and modern Political Correctness has decided that hypocrisy is a greater sin than the Seven Deadlies.

That fallible humans do not live up to their ideals even as a Church is, of course, also crucial to Christian thought and experience. I think we just need to be more honest and more knowledgable of the facts of history and not become overly defensive when unpleasant truths come to light.

There is plenty of wonderful Chirstian history quite apart from fashionable secular criticism. I particularly enjoy the Oxford Early Christian Studies series of monographs.

Then, of course, there is the issue of establishing what counts as history in a casual discussion over a formal debate and so forth. Perhpas I'm overly sensitive to such issues because I'm reading N.T. Wirght's The New Testament and the People of God, which covers such scholarly issues in depth.

I guess all I'm saying in the end is that although I would like to see more interesting and informative discussion of Christian history such discussions are by their very nature problematic and difficult to create and maintain. It doesn't take too many disruptions - sometimes not deliberate or malicious - for a thread to go sideways.

 

[archaeologist2]

just doesn't delve into Christian history enough? I'll agree with you on the latter!

that could be it. i know i am tired of hearing about the r.c.c. abuses during the middle ages and would like to find some information about believers who were outside that organization. i know there were, and i am not just talking baout the waldenses and the other popular persecuted groups.

but often find discussions of history turn into "I'm right; you're wrong/my denomination is right; yours is from the devil" confrontations fairly regularly. I think the format of internet "discussion" creates an adversarial environment ipso facto, even with the best of Christian intentions and prolific use of smileys and such

probably, but i am sure if we worked at it hard enough we could overcome some of these issues.

also think some folk are uncomfortable with the idea that the history of Christianity is more one of sinners than saints, more schisms than reunifications, than a manifest expression of God's love and Christ's saving grace on earth. The sinful humanity of Christianity and history is in contrast to the ideals professed as well as the person of Christ and his Gospel message - and modern Political Correctness has decided that hypocrisy is a greater sin than the Seven Deadlies.

all of those have important lessons to teach but i am sure we can find other things to talk about. i do not like hypocrisy or pol. cor. and the latter shoul dbe expelled from the church. every time a church listens more to the secualr governments, the more problems it brings upon itself.

That fallible humans do not live up to their ideals even as a Church is, of course, also crucial to Christian thought and experience. I think we just need to be more honest and more knowledgable of the facts of history and not become overly defensive when unpleasant truths come to light.

that is a sign that we have to give up the ideals and look at the ancient church the same as it is today, in part.

we do need t be more honest and knowledgable as the non-believer is and the christian looks like a fool when confronted with issues from the past and they have no knowledge of such things.

It doesn't take too many disruptions - sometimes not deliberate or malicious - for a thread to go sideways

true but patience will be needed to bring it back on track.

 

[BrendanMark]

Thank you for your thoughful response.

Since this "Christian History" forum is in the Theology area, I was wondering if you meant discussion of the history of theology (I have an interest in the Christological controversies and Ecumenucal Councils of the early Church), or whether your interest is primarily archaeological (although iconography and discovery of ancient douments contributes to the history of theology, of course), or if your interets in such matters as the "Historical Jesus" debates, or the history of the schisms and doctrinal disputes or in modern Christian history.

The subject is so vast (at least two thousand years even if one is being constrictive) it humbles even an interested and keen reader. I would be happy to contribute to a discussion if I thought I had something to contribute, but I prefer not to pretend expertise I do not possess - nor do I have a particular barrow to push other than understanding and therefore promoting Christianity more deeply and fully.

Perhaps you could provide an example of the sort of topic and scope of discussion you would like to participate in, and I'll try to contribute what I can (if I can!).

Yours in Christ

 

[archaeologist2]

I was wondering if you meant discussion of the history of theology (I have an interest in the Christological controversies and Ecumenucal Councils of the early Church), or whether your interest is primarily archaeological (although iconography and discovery of ancient douments contributes to the history of theology, of course),

i wasjust meanng that there was little action or response to threads or in them.

or whether your interest is primarily archaeological (although iconography and discovery of ancient douments contributes to the history of theology

archaeology is just a part of it .

if your interets in such matters as the "Historical Jesus" debates

theseare not of interest as lasti heard there is not a credible scholar alive today who does not accept the fact that a historical Jesus lived. who He was is what they debate upon.

erhman the gnostics and a host of other secular people do acknowledge that jesus lived.

The subject is so vast (at least two thousand years even if one is being constrictive) it humbles even an interested and keen reader. I would be happy to contribute to a discussion if I thought I had something to contribute, but I prefer not to pretend expertise I do not possess - nor do I have a particular barrow to push other than understanding and therefore promoting Christianity more deeply and fully.

i realize that so i would like to start with the topic, what church groups were outside of the r.c.c. during the dark andmiddle ages. i am tired of hearing about the reformation and i am tired of hearing thatthe r.c.c. was the only religious representatve at the time. i know that isn't true but there is far too little information out there. on it.

all my church history classes focused on an overview then spent the time on luther,calving zwingli. they bore me now.

 

[BrendanMark]

I find the history of the Greek churches fascinating, but "church groups outside the church" means heretics, at least to me. Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites and such "helped" form the church and Christian thought by forcing doctrine and councils to condemn their distortions of the faith. They should not be romaticized as fashionabe rebels or pre-Luther Protestants, IMHO.

The Nestorians failed to articulate a convincing theory of the person of Christ. The unity and sinlessness of Christ were compromised for the sake of an emphasis on the integrity of the humanity of the assumed man and its moral dimensions.
Bathrellos, Demetrios – The Byzantine Christ [Oxford 2004 p. 23]

The importance of Chalcedon in both historical and theological terms can hardly be overestimated. By introducing into Christology the terminology which had been used in the fourth century to denote unity and distinction in God, it brought about a helpful integration of ‘theology’ and ‘economy’. In addition, it provided the Church with a terminology capable of protecting faith both from Nestorian and monophysite aberrations. By stating that the one person of Christ is one hypostasis, it demonstrated its firm opposition to Nestorianism. On the other hand, by saying that this hypostasis is known in two natures, not only in a divine but also in a human nature, it showed that it is unacceptable to confuse Christ’s natures, to jeopardize his consubstantiality with the Father and with us, or to undermine the fullness of his humanity after the union.
Bathrellos, Demetrios – The Byzantine Christ [Oxford 2004 p. 30]

 

[BrendanMark]

Oh, and would you mind refraining from dissecting my posts line by line and engage in polite conversation instead? If one feels that every word is under microscopic scrutiny one is less inclined to continue posting.

 

[archaeologist2]

i am not dissecting your words but just addressing the issues you raised so you know what i am referring to.

as an example:

find the history of the Greek churches fascinating, but "church groups outside the church" means heretics

this is the thought i am answering and it is easy to reference when commenting instead of stopping, scrolling up then scrolling down.

to answert that:

i am not talking about the the heretical groups as i do not consider the r.c.c. the standard bearer for the church in those ages. i am looking for groups who were true to the gospel as Jesus and the apostles taught it and who were NOT part of the r.c.c.
nice quotes but not what i was thinking of.

 

[BrendanMark]

There was no Schism for the first thousand years of Christian history: there was one Church or heretics (Apollinarians, Monothelites, Gnostics . . .) or other religions (pagans, Jews etc). No R.C.C. or Orthodox, just The Christian Church.

But if you wish to explore the various Alexandrian and Antiochene theologies and the history of the Greek/Eastern sees before or after the Schism, there are many fine volumes available. Vladamir Lossky's The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church is a classic, and without an understanding of Eastern theology any historical understanding of that aspect of the Christian faith becomes problematic, at least IMHO. The Chalcedonian Definition and such are of the essence.

For the Schism itself and issues of the filioque, I would recommend at least reading St Photius' The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, as well as David Bradshaw's Aristotle East and West - Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom for a modern analysis.

If your interst is primarily in the Western faith, few heretical groups emerged from the West after Rome fell (and the West never had much of a problem with the Kerygma, the Trinity and the Christological issues which so plagued and divided the Eastern church), try H. Daniel-Rops' The Church in the Dark Ages.

If your interest strays to medieval thought, or perhaps the bridge from ancient to medieval Christianity, perhaps Charles Homer Haskins' The Renaissance of the Twelth Century would suit. Or for something more direct, try John Ruusbroec's (1293 - 1381) The Spiritual Espousals. The Classics of Western Spirituality series, as well as the Ancient Christian Writers series are great for sourcce matieral from all eras of Chirstian history.

For patristics I'm a fan of the Oxford Early Christian Studies series of mongraphs. I don't really know what else to say from here as we have no real topic to discuss.

 

[Chairman Meow]

Not sure if you should say the "Christian Church" was united like one solid monolith. From every groups understanding everyone else was a heretic. It was a mixing pot for a few centuries.

 

[Rick Otto]

Kinda whiny for a guy who should be traveling the world in a fedora seeking fortune & glory.

 

[BrendanMark]

Not sure if you should say the "Christian Church" was united like one solid monolith. From every groups understanding everyone else was a heretic. It was a mixing pot for a few centuries.

I cannot recall saying or implying it was monolithic: nevertheless councils anathematized and excommunicated from the base of one Christian Church (Christianity is the religion of unity in diversity, the Triune One etc.), not many denominations or churches . . . unless one considers heretical Nestorian and Monothelitic churches that remained in apostasy for centuries to be Christian, which I do not.

That it was one church does not imply monolithic: most every heresy was Eastern in origin, as were and are the heretical "churches" before the Reformation, if nothing else.

 

[pauljrose]

Well get the ball rolling. Start up a worthwhile discussion. I think the problem is folks keep asking the same questions that have been asked over and over. I tell you what, I have several Christian History books. I will throw something out there.

 

[Rick Otto]

That it was one church does not imply monolithic:

Valid point, but I think the reality on the ground is that the aura of prestige achieved by presenting a resume of uninterrupted inerrancy & infallability gives all the rhetorical weight of a monolith. It was only an overstatement because it lacked a modifying adjetive of some sort. I wouldn't asess it as over-reaching.

 

[BrendanMark]

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[Mrs Butterworth]

For the average person Christian history is learned in public school and is absolutely horrible. I was raised to be an atheist and everything I learned in school suggested to me that organized Christian religion was not a good place to look for God. To me there was a difference between the Christian religion (R.C.C or any of the Protestant denominations) and what God should be.

If you define Christian history as more a testimony to what God has done in people and through people, (stories of faith) Christian history sort of stops after the New Testament (not including Revelations) and doesn't really pick up again until the mid 1800's, with only a few smatterings of history in between. In fact I have been trying to find decent books on Christian history that I can have my kids read, but I haven't found anything. Any suggestions?



Discussion forums can be warm and scholarly, with a lot of participation, but it requires that a majority of the participants have proper manners. I am talking about not tearing people up, demeaning them, or having a to be the smartest one, not dominating anything, nor ganging up on others. People are capable of being mature, humble, and appreciative of the contributions of others even if they disagree with them. A forum should not go to the one who is most aggressive, but be a place where even the meekest of us feel free to participate. It has been my experience that some of these very aggressive people are not the most knowledgeable, and the meeker ones, when they finally open up, can be a wealth of knowledge and insight. It is possible to have a forum like this, I have been on one or two of them., ironically none of them were Christian forums. This is shameful.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

In fact I have been trying to find decent books on Christian history that I can have my kids read, but I haven't found anything. Any suggestions?

Mrs. Butterworth - what a cute name and icon.

Here are some recommendations for church history books. These are some great introductions which are cheap, especially used:

Jones, Timothy Paul. Christian History Made Easy. Torrance, CA: Rose Publishing, 1999. Written by a pastor to laypeople, its divided into 13 chapters (lessons) which are informative and short. I think its ideal for home schooling students. It includes summaries and web links. About 160 pages.

Gonzalez, Justo L. Church History: An Essential Guide. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996. Its a great summary of Gonzalez' 2 volume church history work (listed below). About 100 pages.

Bingham, D. Jeffrey. Pocket History of the Church. Downers Grove, Ill:InterVarsity Press, 2002. Another small book that packs in a lot of information. About 200 pages.

These next two sets are good multivolumes covering church history in more detail, but also very readable:
Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984. 2 Volumes.

Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christianity. Peabody MA: Prince Press, 1997. 2 Volumes.

Discussion forums can be warm and scholarly, with a lot of participation, but it requires that a majority of the participants have proper manners. I am talking about not tearing people up, demeaning them, or having a to be the smartest one, not dominating anything, nor ganging up on others. People are capable of being mature, humble, and appreciative of the contributions of others even if they disagree with them. A forum should not go to the one who is most aggressive, but be a place where even the meekest of us feel free to participate. It has been my experience that some of these very aggressive people are not the most knowledgeable, and the meeker ones, when they finally open up, can be a wealth of knowledge and insight. It is possible to have a forum like this, I have been on one or two of them., ironically none of them were Christian forums. This is shameful.

Yes, shameful that nonchristians show more maturity in treating others than Christians sometimes do. Hopefully though this forum might be a friendly and helpful place such as you have described.


LDG

 

[revanneosl]

I think that one of the major obstacles to frank, open and helpful discussion of the History of Christianity on this forum is that a large number of us, probably the majority, come at the subject of Christian History from a theological, rather than an historical, point of view.

Just as an example: the above discussion of western Christian groups outside the boundaries of the Roman Catholic Church during the Medieval period. To say that during that period the Church was One, and outside her were only heretics is a theological statement - not an historical statement. An historian would say that the Medieval period featured several divergent groups, each of whom claimed to be the One True Church, and whose competing claims got worked out in a variety of ways, sometimes violently.

The discussions in this sub-forum more often tend to be characterized by competition between divergent theological claims about the nature of Church History then by discussion about the various types of historical evidence and how they can be adequately interpreted. That's why I don't post here very much. As an historian, I find it too frustrating to try to addess the ways in which people "talk past each other" here.