Posted on 06/27/2009 10:01:54 AM PDT by Salvation
How Old Is Your Church?If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex- monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517. If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry. If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560. If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century. If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582. If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744. If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774. If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829. If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605. If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628. If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865. If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder. If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as 'Church of the Nazarene," "Pentecostal Gospel." "Holiness Church," "Pilgrim Holiness Church," "Jehovah's Witnesses," your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century. If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church. |
Christian monks lived in monasteries. Over centuries, the monks were the only people who knew to read and write as society degenerated post the Romans. The monks also supported themselvevs with farms, herbs etc. NObility donated land and gifts to the monasteries for upkeep of the monasteries. Thats how the monks got properties...
Hardly — if you can’t see that Baptists are close to heresy and in fact closely follow early gnostic heresies (in fact they co-opt full-blown gnostics like the Cathars as their own). The entire “Baptist” group’s theology is a mish-mash
“I figured you couldn’t come up with an answer.” [excerpt]Actually, a certain verse in Proverbs came to mind.
“Nice dodge, though. ;)” [excerpt]Thanks, glad you liked it.
LOL! Probably very short lived too.
Not ELCA. LCMS, as my tagline indicates.
In any case, the Lutherans and Anglicans are close to orthodoxy. They follow much of Apostolic Doctrine.
I don't know how I could be any closer to orthodoxy than I already am, and I don't know which article of apostolic doctrine I am not already following.
When it comes to apostolic doctrine, I'll put confessional Lutheranism up against Romanism any day of the week.
Right. In your mind yes.
In history books no.
Yes, a factual NO SPIN book that is 100% correct with no spin. </s>
I cannot blame them for that, sounds like a waste of time. Religious discussions are best held with a mutual desire to search the scriptures to find out what God desires and not with the idea of having "lots of fun". This isn't a fight over who roots for the better sports team.
“Then show the history. But to do that, you would have to show that Christ installed Peter as head of the Church - which all other denominations deny.
Based on scripture and history, I deny it as well. Acts 15:
“12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up...19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.”
Interesting. Peter was there, yet it was James who made the decision, based on testimony from Paul & Peter both.
It would seem history denies Peter was Numero Uno in the Church.”
In Acts 12:17, Peter had fled Jerusalem “for another place” (which Tradition tells us is Rome — both Eusebius and Jerome count Peter’s episcopacy in Rome from this time, which was AD 42). However, the Council of Jerusalem took place in AD 49 and, strangely enough, Peter just happens to be there having disappeared from the narrative of Acts since chapter 12. Why so? Well, as we know from Seutonius, all the Jews were expelled from Rome by Emperor Claudius in AD 49 (same year as the Jerusalem council) and their expulsion was because of a riot over someone named “Chrestus” (i.e., “Christus” or Christ).
So, Peter was among the refugees which is why he was back in Jerusalem (thereafter to go on to Antioch, after the Council, and then back to Rome after Claudius’ death, when Jews could return).
Yes, Peter was at the Council. And, here’s how the Council operated:
“The apostles and presbyters met together to see about the matter. After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them....”
And Peter’s teaching on the matter is conveyed through the next several verses. Thereafter, when Peter finishes, it says:
“The whole assembly FELL SILENT...” (That is, the other Apostles and presbyters) ... “...and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them.”
So, did the Jerusalem Council operate like the Orthodox model of an Ecumenical council? Or rather like the Catholic model? Here’s how it worked:
The bishops met to examine the matter. They debated.
Then, Peter — after listening to the debate — gave HIS TEACHING (vox Petros).
After this, the Council FALLS SILENT (a la, the Tome of Leo).
Then, Paul and Barnabas were permitted to tell about their first missionary journey so as to back up Peter’s teaching with signs from the Holy Spirit.
And, thereafter, James gives a ruling. And, this is the only thing that seems unCatholic to some.
However, whereas it does say (in verse 13) how Paul and Barnabas “fall silent,” allowing James to respond, this does not take away from the entire assembly “falling silent” after Peter’s teaching in verse 12. Why? Because we are dealing with 2 Greek words. In 13, the verb is “sigesai” (infinitive aorist: meaning that Paul and Barnabas finished talking). In verse 12, it’s “esigese” (past tense aorist usage — meaning that the assembly REMAINED SILENT after Peter’s address). And, indeed, after Peter speaks, all debate stops. The matter had been settled.
So, why does James speak?
He’s the bishop of Jerusalem. Peter was just a visitor.
What he says, he ...like Paul and Barnabas ...ties into Peter’s declaration: “Brothers, listen to me. SYMEON has described how God...” etc.
And, most importantly, because James was the leader of the Church’s “Jewish wing.” Remember, in verse 1 and 2 how Acts 15 describes:
“Some who had come DOWN FROM JUDAEA were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.’
They were coming FROM JAMES! They were HIS disciples! Therefore, he renders judgment on the matter for his Jewish party, not as a superior or equal of Peter.
And, this is most clear in verse 19, where it says:
“It is my judgement, therefore, that WE ought to STOP TROUBLING THE GENTILES.”
Who was “troubling” the Gentiles?
Not Paul and Barnabas.
Not Peter and his disciples, who Baptised the first Gentiles without circumcision.
So, who?
ONLY the Jewish Christians under James. Therefore, it is NOT the whole Church, but only the “Jewish party” that James is giving a “judgment” to...
So again, the Council of Jerusalem was not an Ecumenical Council by Byzantine Orthodox definition. Rather, it was COMPLETELY based on the Petrine teaching office: the magisterium of the Church.
When I got over my adolescent dismissal of all organized religion, I chose to enter the Roman Catholic Church via the RCIA program at my local parish. The fact that it is the original Christian church, along with its tenets, tradition and history, was a significant part of my decision. I’m delighted to have joined the Church.
That statement is both true and flawed. First the flaw. It is false to say "other denominations" since the Catholic Church is not a denomination. That nomenclature is used to distinguish one protestant sect from another.
Second: of course they deny it! Doesn't mean much, but they'd hardly be proper protestants if they didn't protest against the Pope, Christ's Vicar on Earth.
An interesting read. Thank you.
I've never been to Italy so I wouldn't know about any "Roman" Catholic Church, but in general, the difference between "the catholic church" and "the Catholic Church" is lazy capitalization. They are otherwise one in the same.
How many Orthodox Christians does it take to change a light bulb?
Change? What is this, “CHANGE?”
Very good!!!
Farming it. Eating. Living.
Oh, and preserving the Gospels and the works of Greece, Rome, etc.--civilization itself--through the dark ages.
All books are biased. What part of Roman Catholic persecution of other groups do believe is incorrect? They aren’t the persecutors today for the most part, but the past is not pretty for the RCC.
You are correct. They considered, and consider, infant baptism to be invalid because it is not believer’s baptism. Hence, they rebaptize.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.