Discussion with regards to Church history

I've been away for awhile and when I got back the thread I was discussing this issue of Church history was shut down. Rightly so it was begining to get nasty. However, DHK posted and I hadn't had the opportunity to get back with him so I wanted to answer his questions with regard to his post.

My Statement

DHK's response

I think this is the crux of the issue under discussion here. I've noted two things in the reply that I would like to respond to. 1.

Well, DHK I study a lot of different historical text. Note btw that while growing up I lived overseas until I graduated from High School. So my education has been a mix of French, English, and American. I studied history in each setting. When I got back to the US after a stint in the Air Force I went to University in Tennessee and studied both world and US history there. That was a COG University. I completed my graduate Studies in Pennsylvania at an American Baptist University. Currently, I've read the works of Carroll who is currently in the library at my Church most of it is commentary but you get an Idea of his historical perspective. Currently I've read Zondervan's History of Christianity more of a synopsis really than an indepth study of History, I've Rose Publications History of Christianity another synopsis but has good timelines and quick referrence guides, I've read Dr. Hall discourse on the Early church Fathers from my Alma Mater, I've read JND Kelly an Anglican, I've read John Vidmar a Catholic, I've Read Bruce Metzger, FF Bruce, and Norman Geisler. Note along with these I have read the english translations for many of the ECF. I have one book of the ECF that has the greek on one page and the english on the other. And just for fun I've gone through some of the works of Messianic Jewish writers commenting on the Jewishness of Jesus. And of couse I've read the writings of the second temple period and an analysis by Jewish/Israeli scholar David Flusser. Now I hope that gives you the background for my historical perspective. Note with the statement about the Catholic Church I was saying that as a summery statement. The Roman Catholic church became distinctively that during the Schizm. However, there are traces that are before that but those traces are just as similar to EO as it is to RC. Note there have always been some differences between East and Western Christians. Easterns were always a bit more philisophical while the Western Christians leaned closer to a legal interpretive view of Scripture. The second thing I would like to comment on is your statement

. Strictly speaking this is an inacurrate statement. The bible is most subjective. Thats not to say it isn't accurate nor does it deny its validity but the bible is subjective and is very much the perception of God. However, what most christians seem to have a problem with is that they read the bible in their modern context alone rather than the context of when it was written. Nor do they know the context in which the bible was compiled in. I think that with my experiences that I may be a bit more objective than some and less objective than others but I try to give it a fair go.

Unfortunately, there has been there are too many writings from peoples of antiquity to suggest otherwise.

I have and I have a copy which I referrence. And the definition of Bishops have not changed though you limit their responsibilities from the begining. When in fact the only reason their area's of responsibilities were smaller is because the number of christians were few and as they grew their positions became increasingly more administrative. This also can be determined in the study of ancient writings and texts.

True nothing to do with denominationalism everything to do with universalism. Apostolic Succession can be argued from the same text. You do nothing here to further your position.

Of course:

Shortly there after

Note in each of his Journeys

Really? Well this verse seems to disagree with you

They certainly were putting everyone on the same page from Jerusalem by letters. If your supposition were correct then each church individually would have decided how to treat gentile believers.

No to the first
And Yes to the rest.

 

Its true that there was a joint history in 1054. And to be honest I see the arguments for both sides. The Roman Bishop didn't want the Byzantine Emperor to appoint Bishops and be totally free of monarchial rule. The Orthodox generally believed that the Western Church weren't savvy enough to understand theological subtleties. In an attempt to root out Arianism from the Western Churches the Filioque was devised by a bishop in Spain. This was done without assent from church councils which the eastern churches had an issue with. There were many and diverse issues culminating with both sides excommunicating the other. Though I must admit that Rome was the most disrespectful in 1054. BTW there weren't denominations back during Constantine. There were the Donatist who were upset that Christians could serve in leadership even though they sacrificed to the Roman gods during the Dioclesian persecution and felt these "traitors" weren't real Christians. And the vast majority of other churches that allowed repentance for these people. Then there was the Arian debate. However, apart from these the seperations were Christians from gnostics. Constantine told the Churches to figure out what was orthodox and stick to it thus Nicea. He would have accepted Arianism if it had won out. But there was a landslide victory to the "Nicean" Christians. Arianism lasted a bit longer but eventually as men like Ambrose stood up to the Emperor and against the Arians. For the most part Christian entire was universal and these others weren't denominations as much as speculative Theology being sorted out and Orthodoxy being established.

 

Good no worries then since I'm not Catholic and I don't think Billwald is either unless I'm mistaken.

 

I don't. Not really. What I do is clarify the argument. I don't buy dishonest look at history just to prove a tennant. Nor do I impute doctrine they do not have on to them. Like the purgatory debate. My reasons for being against Catholic is more practicle. Since, I left the church when I was 15 I'm actually in the group of DHK. People who were once Catholic. However, I never felt a hatred for the Catholic Church and I never bought into Alpha and Omega Ministries claims against the Catholic Church. I actually studied history and I can't correspond some extreem baptist claims with actual documents and finds in history. And when I see an inconsistency I point it out. I honestly believed that the Church has changed (evolved) matching itself with the development of the society and culture and technology surrounding it. I believe there are timeless truths that should never be rejected to favor society, culture, or techonology. And some of these truths are held by all Christians regardless of denominations.

 

I've not disputed this.

 

Hear, Hear.

 

No I'm not defending Purgatory I've already stated I don't believe in Pugatory. What I am doing is making sure that you argue what it is they actually believe about purgatory which is more about Theosis than "paying". Consider this if you are arguing that Joe Biden is the president and the Catholic says not really Barak Obama is the president but you persist in saying that Biden was elected as president, how effectual of an argument do you have? Thisis how the purgatory debate is being framed here on this thread. When you actually study what it is the Catholics believe then I think the paradigm of the conversation changes and apples will equal apples.

 

He wasn't always Catholic BTW. And the reason I like his signature is the subject of the signature. I find it humorous. Note I don't believe in the Rapture which is a modern invention or relatively modern primarily coming out of the 1800's perputrated by the SDA's and the Scholfeild bible and reached critical mass in the 60's and 70's with the book the Late Great Planet Earth and movies like "a theif in the night" and more recently with the Apocalypse books by Lehaye. I think it wrongly focuses eschatology on the future and causes statements like "well this is just another sign that end is near and I won't be here much longer" also funny episodes of young students jumping up and down doing "rapture checks" and jokes like "when I get caught up I'm going to grab the guy on my left and on my right and about half way Up I'll tell them to repent or I'll let go!" Rather than seeing the Kingdom of heaven is currently here in the Christian body and that we are to subdue to earth to obedience and subjection of Christ. We are to do the work not wait for an uncertian future. I believe Jesus is coming again but not 1 time half way and later a 2nd time fully. I believe when Jesus comes back its will be in entirety and for good. I believe in the resurrection of the body.