Why are today’s churches so different than the NT churches?

[DarylFawcett]

MOD HAT ON!!!!!

Moved to a more appropriate area of CF.

MOD HAT OFF!!!!!

 

[OzSpen]

MOD HAT ON!!!!!

Moved to a more appropriate area of CF.

MOD HAT OFF!!!!!

Daryl,

Why don't you give a link to where you moved it?

I did a search and it 'Timed Out' on me.

Thanks,
Oz

 

[prodromos]

Daryl,

Why don't you give a link to where you moved it?

I did a search and it 'Timed Out' on me.

Thanks,
Oz

just scroll to the top or bottom of the thread you just posted in to find which section (Christian History) it is in.

 

[OzSpen]

just scroll to the top or bottom of the thread you just posted in to find which section (Christian History) it is in.

There is nothing there to tell me to where this thread has been re-directed.

Do you know where this new thread by this topic is re-directed? Can you provide a URL?

 

[prodromos]

http://www.christianforums.com/f84/ Christian History in the Theology Sub-Forum

http://www.christianforums.com/t7835001/

 

[OzSpen]

http://www.christianforums.com/f84/ Christian History in the Theology Sub-Forum

http://www.christianforums.com/t7835001/

I followed these URLs and found that both of those are still under 'history'. I don't get it.

 

[prodromos]

I followed these URLs and found that both of those are still under 'history'. I don't get it.

I suspect you misunderstood what happens when a thread gets moved. This thread that we are posting in is the same thread you are searching for. It was originally in the Salvation sub-forum of General Theology, but now it resides in the Church History sub-forum of Theology.

 

[OzSpen]

I suspect you misunderstood what happens when a thread gets moved. This thread that we are posting in is the same thread you are searching for. It was originally in the Salvation sub-forum of General Theology, but now it resides in the Church History sub-forum of Theology.

Ah, now I understand.

Thanks so much for persisting with me and explaining. This Brissyite has got it at last.

Thanks,
Oz

 

[prodromos]

Ah, now I understand.

Thanks so much for persisting with me and explaining. This Brissyite has got it at last.

Thanks,
Oz

You're very welcome . I've just spent a few weeks trying to get an image to appear in my signature. j followed the dialogue in the User CP to upload the image but nothing would display. In the end, all it took was the use of img tags in my signature .

 

[oworm]

Whenever I hear or read of someone who wants us to get back to the NT era church model I always find myself asking, 'Which one?' Corinth with all its problems of immorality, socioeconomic pride and bad theology? Galatia with its legalistic tendency to add to the gospel? Or perhaps Laodicea with it's lukewarmness? If you read through your NT carefully you probably won't find many local congregations who didn't need some kind of corrective admonishment.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Funny. I don't find the history between the end of Acts and the end of the 2nd century to be particularly hard to come by.

It's a rather rich period of history, and the development and history of the Christian Church in those ~150 years is rather well detailed.

Why does the Church in the late 2nd century follow an episcopal model? Because that had been the case, if not from the start, then at least quite early on. The letters of St. Ignatius, circa 105 AD, offer a rather definitive set of statements of an episcopal ecclesiastical polity.

Why does the Church at the end of the 2nd century teach, emphatically, that Baptism saves? Because that's what it had been saying from the beginning (c.f. Acts 2:38, Romans 6:1-10, Galatians 3:27, etc).

I don't find this radical disconnect between the Church of the Apostolic era and the Church of the sub-apostolic era that apparently exists in some peoples' estimation. I simply do not see it. Instead I see a very natural evolution, of standards established in the formative years of the early Apostolic era, growing within that period (as witnessed in the New Testament itself) and continuing on in the years following.

Why do some people see this radical disconnect? Because they want to see it, they are trying to find it. They want to do Christianity their way, they want to make the Church conform to their opinions, they believe they should arbitrate how to "do" Church, and so begins an endless parade of folks who think it's time to reinvent the wheel.

As a Lutheran I am further irritated by the way that these radical neo-Protestants attempt to coopt Martin Luther and the Reformation, believing that they are, in a sense, merely continuing Luther's work.

Their spiritual mentor isn't Luther or any of the reformers, their mentor are the radicals and the enthusiasts, inflammatory, radical men like Karlstadt who would, if he could have, torched the whole Church to the ground.

And some continue desiring to do so. But Christ's Church will not fall, not even against the gates of Hell.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[OzSpen]

As a Lutheran I am further irritated by the way that these radical neo-Protestants attempt to coopt Martin Luther and the Reformation, believing that they are, in a sense, merely continuing Luther's work.

Their spiritual mentor isn't Luther or any of the reformers, their mentor are the radicals and the enthusiasts, inflammatory, radical men like Karlstadt who would, if he could have, torched the whole Church to the ground.

Why don't you illumine us as to who these 'radical neo-Protestants' are who are followers of Karlstadt?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why don't you illumine us as to who these 'radical neo-Protestants' are who are followers of Karlstadt?

Anyone who believed/believes it necessary to discard very nearly the grand total of the entire Christian tradition, regarding it as worthless fodder, in order to "restore" or reinvent the Church according to their own reading of the New Testament.

The Reformation was about reform, not revolution. That's why it's the Protestant Reformation, not the Protestant Revolution. What men like Andreas Karlstadt wanted was a revolution.

The Reformation was about confessing the ancient catholic faith of the Church, not inventing a new Christian faith in place of the old.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

The church didn't change. The people's understanding of what the church is has changed.

 

[OzSpen]

Anyone who believed/believes it necessary to discard very nearly the grand total of the entire Christian tradition, regarding it as worthless fodder, in order to "restore" or reinvent the Church according to their own reading of the New Testament.

The Reformation was about reform, not revolution. That's why it's the Protestant Reformation, not the Protestant Revolution. What men like Andreas Karlstadt wanted was a revolution.

The Reformation was about confessing the ancient catholic faith of the Church, not inventing a new Christian faith in place of the old.

-CryptoLutheran

So who are the 'radical neo-Protestants' on this forum who fall into this category and can be identified with Karlstadt?

 

[ViaCrucis]

So who are the 'radical neo-Protestants' on this forum who fall into this category and can be identified with Karlstadt?

So far? Just the OP as far as I can tell.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[OzSpen]

The church didn't change. The people's understanding of what the church is has changed.

The function of the church most certainly has changed. This is what was experienced at Corinth in the second half of the first century:

What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up (I Cor 14:26 NIV).
​

It very quickly became hierarchical to the point where 1 Cor 14:26 is far removed from the function of the church in most of contemporary Australia where I live.

The church function has changed radically. Is that not the case in your part of the world?

Oz

 

[ViaCrucis]

The function of the church most certainly has changed. This is what was experienced at Corinth in the second half of the first century:

What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up (I Cor 14:26 NIV).
​

It very quickly became hierarchical to the point where 1 Cor 14:26 is far removed from the function of the church in most of contemporary Australia where I live.

The church function has changed radically. Is that not the case in your part of the world?

Oz

You're assuming 1 Corinthians 14:26 is about how to conduct a church service. That isn't a supposition I and many share. Rather 1 Corinthians 14:26, within the context of the chapter and the entire argument in that part of the epistle, is about orderliness; in particular the orderliness of gift usage.

It seems more believable to me that the average Christian gathering reflected the worship forms most familiar to 1st century Jews and Greeks; not worship forms familiar to 21st century Western Evangelicals and Charismatics.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[OzSpen]

You're assuming 1 Corinthians 14:26 is about how to conduct a church service. That isn't a supposition I and many share. Rather 1 Corinthians 14:26, within the context of the chapter and the entire argument in that part of the epistle, is about orderliness; in particular the orderliness of gift usage.

It seems more believable to me that the average Christian gathering reflected the worship forms most familiar to 1st century Jews and Greeks; not worship forms familiar to 21st century Western Evangelicals and Charismatics.

-CryptoLutheran

It's certainly not about what happens when a footy crowd or political gathering comes together.

'When you come together, each one has' refers to the church at Corinth coming together for its gathering when the gifts of the Spirit are allowed to flow.

That's not the current norm for churches in my part of the world. We are a country mile from that biblical model.