How Old Is Your Church?

EWTN ^ | not given | EWTN

[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.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your insights, dear Cronos!

The dissension by Luther was of administrative corruption and something that should have been done within to cleanse The Church -- this was instead taken up by St. Ignatius of Loyola who cleaned house (proud ex-Jesuit student here!).

Truly, it would have been a benefit for the Catholic Church faithful if the dissension had been kept within.

I do not know the history, how many times Luther may have tried to get the attention of his superiors, to recenter the Church on God instead of the interests of men - which is of paramount importance:

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. – Matthew 22:37-38

But if he tried twice and was ignored, he was justified to turn his back on them rather than compromise on the Great Commandment:

But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself. - Titus 3:9-11

Or to put it another way, sometimes we can see dissension and splitting working for the good, e.g. the dissension between Barnabas and Paul was sad but the Gospel spread further and farther as a result.

So to me, even if the situation hurts or makes no sense to us in this mortal life, the bottom line is always to love God, to believe Him and to trust Him.

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose.- Romans 8:28

God's Name is I AM.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply and your question!

Is the term "Christian" God inspired or man made.

As Cronos pointed out, a thing may be inspired by God and yet appear to be made of a man.

It is also prophecy that we are called by His Name:

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. - 2 Ch 7:14

But now thus saith the LORD that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called [thee] by thy name; thou [art] mine... [Even] every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him. - Isaiah 43:1,7

O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for thine own sake, O my God: for thy city and thy people are called by thy name. - Daniel 9:19

Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? - James 2:7

But there is so very much to be said about the Name of God, it really deserves its own thread.

After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. - Matthew 6:9

Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name. - Psalms 91:14

Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. – Matthew 10:32-33

And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto the LORD your God. – Deut 12:3-4

His Name is Truth and powerful:

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. – Exodus 3:14

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. – John 8:58

As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward, and fell to the ground. - John 18:6

And never to be taken lightly:

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. - Exodus 20:7

To God be the glory!

[PugetSoundSoldier]

but, sticking to those two only, is there any difference theologically between them?

In terms of salvation? No. There aren't ANY theological differences between Catholicism and Protestantism either, if you consider the fundamental foundation of Christianity as set forth in the Nicene Creed.

The ONE fundamental spiritual truth that I find in many Protestant groups that I really cannot reconcile with is the idea of pre-destination, to me it smacks of the idea of a cruel God which I can't reconcile with my image of a loving Christian God.

That is because you don't understand it. It is not pre-destination! Your life is not pre-determined! However, your life is known from before you were born until well past your time in Heaven. God knows all. ALL. He knows what you will do, before you do it.

I've found the following example to be quite instructive. Consider you are in a corn maze, out in the middle of a field. To you, you do not know the results of any given turn you take; will you exit the maze, or run in loops, or enter a dead end?

However, consider that I am hovering above the maze in a helicopter. I can see you, and I can see the entire maze as well. I know the EXACT result of EVERY decision you can take, because I can see where that decision will take you! But I do not know which decision you will make.

As such, I have complete, 100% knowledge of everything that can happen to you while you are in that maze. And I have 100% complete knowledge of every choice and potential future you will meet after you make each choice. But I do not know which choice you will make.

God knows what will happen for every choice we make, and He knows all the choices we will face. But by His gift of free will, He voluntarily does NOT know which choice we will make. Only what will be the results of it, and what new choices will arise.

Does that clarify things up? Just like my knowing about you in the maze does not pre-ordain your path, God's knowing of all potential choices and their results does not pre-ordain which choices we will make.

The other points, especially the administrative issues (is the Pope our bishop or not) are not as significant as this basic idea of God.

Correct. They are not issues to be bogged down and condemn each other about. Just because the Holy See wears white vestments and the Eastern Patriarch wears black does not mean one church is older or newer or better than another.

Doctrinal/dogmatic divisions between Christian churches does NOT mean one church is better or older or newer than another. It means that we have different ways of expressing our relationship to God; we have different ways of relating to Him.

I see Protestant groups going from the Anglicans and Lutherans who initially taught the same orthodox teachings, but then you had changes in the form of Calvinist teachings, then the next step was Unitarians and it seems like all inevitably head towards serious non-Christian beliefs like Mormons etc.

Was the early Church - even the Church well established - that did not deal with heretics and heresy? Gnostics, Cathars, and more...

Calvinism is often misunderstood. At its heart, Calvinism is:

Despite the various contributing streams of thought, a distinctive issue in Calvinist theology that is often used to represent the whole is the system's particular soteriology (doctrine of salvation), which emphasizes that humans are incapable of adding anything to obtain salvation and that God alone is the initiator at every stage of salvation, including the formation of faith and every decision to follow Christ.

I think most of us would agree that it is God alone who provides salvation - there is nothing we can do to earn salvation! Only God provides it. God is the seed of our yearning (that "God shaped hole in our soul"), and God ultimately is who saves us.

Now, when taken too far, Calvinism can become twisted; but so too can any church or doctrine! Again, this does not point to the errors or fallibility of God or the truths in the Bible, but the utter fallibility of any institution run by men (regardless of who set it up). An institution is only as good as the people who run and permeate it; since we are ALL fallen, we are ALL imperfect, any institution we run WILL also be imperfect.

The truths that all our churches were founded on - nearly 200 years ago - are infallible and perfect. How we express that, and how that has evolved and changed over time shows that our own expression and belief is imperfect.

In the case of Mormons and JWs, sometimes it is much worse than others. That is not to say I do not relish talking and relating to my Mormon neighbor (he's a great guy, really, and is the first to help out with anything). If anything, it is the lessons of Paul in correcting early church plants about doctrine that COMPELS me to relate and talk with him.

One day, he will be saved, and he and I (and you!) will worship together in Heaven. When that day will be, I do not know, but I know that I can only reach him by showing him the love and acceptance of Christ as perfect and complete; additions are not needed. And I can best do that by admitting the failings and weakness of my own institutions - ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

I think this is the biggest difference between Protestants and Catholics: veneration of the Church. To a Protestant, if the church does not support Scripture, or considers itself a source equal to (or above) that of the Scripture, then we reject it. There is nothing equal or higher than the Word of God.

I know that Catholic theology does not call for all of the teachings of the Catholic Church to be equal to those in the Bible; however, too few Catholics really understand that. It is in very specific and defined ways that the Catholic Church claims infallibility with its own theology, catechism, and dogma.

This, then, is a failure once again of men, not of God. We even set our own institutions up and forget how we did and the rules laid down!

[kosta50]

kosta50, you’re just trying to pick a fight

Not really, just asking you a simple question about your statements. I think you are just trying to avoid answering it.

[Cronos]

Claim 2, I would say there is evidence for and against. To make a claim of absolute (funded all/didn't fund any) is not tenable; at best, we have evidence that Innocent funded at least some portion of the fourth crusade!

I'll accept that.

Claim 3, selling of indulgences. We do know that at least Pope Leo X sold indulgences to fund the crusades. No, ultimately his crusade fizzled out and never happened, but there is no doubt that he sold them.

Ok, valid point if technically not something that funded a crusade.

In any case, the point at the back of this (lost somewhere :) was exactly what you expounded -- ALL have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God. That includes institutions run by men.


We don't put the institution of the papacy etc. above everything else -- we'll be the first to admit some of our popes have been bad men, however, The Church as a whole has survived and true to The Faith.

[Cronos]

So the Roman soldiers who whipped Christ, who beat Him, who made the crucifix, and who nailed and tied Him to the cross didn't really kill Him, He died a natural death because of exposure and the inability to breathe in an awkward position.

If you raise funds for a criminal activity (say, you fund the purchase of land and materials for a meth lab), do not expect to be absolved of the resulting crime! It may have been an indirect involvement in the funding of the crusades, but it was funding nevertheless.

1. The soldiers who whipped Christ -- that's not a fair comparison to fund-raising v/s funding.

2. Are you saying that the Crusades were a criminal activity??? Protecting Christians from Muslims is wrong???

3. If you raise funds for an activity, that is not the same as funding. You take the case of paying out of your own pocket for the meth lab or organizing it for "investors" to invest in the meth lab which is then owned by them. Those are two different activities.

[Cronos]

There aren't ANY theological differences between Catholicism and Protestantism either, if you consider the fundamental foundation of Christianity as set forth in the Nicene Creed

Valid enough on those terms

Pre-destination is not foreknowledge. The way many Calvinists put it is that God has picked some to go to hell. That is not the same as saying God knows which one of us will make the choices to go to hell. A subtle difference perhaps but one that differentiates between a god that delights in torture of his creation and a Loving, Christian God.

I also note that that is the difference between Arminian and Calvinistic philosophy among Protestants.

Taking your corn field example, if you state it THAT way, that is what Arminius and The Church would say, however, that is not what Calvin would say -- Calvinist thought is that your path through the corn field is set. you are tied to the track and have no way to leave it. And that reeks of Hindu type "Karma" or Muslim sense of "Allah jaane"


If you believe in the corn-field example you gave, then you and us in The Church aren't so different after all

Doctrinal differences matter, my dear PSS, for the very reason I talked about Mormons and Unitarians who take the idea of sola scriptura and use it to make their own gospel or their own understanding.

you are very right to bring up the point of the early heresies, but , HERE's THE POINT, we should have laid them to rest once and for all, but they come and creep back up again, because The Church did not keep teaching it's people.

Yes, in one thing Luther was correct that the Church in the middle ages should have been teaching it's people more -- we didn't learn from St. Francis and his poor friars enough. however, I think the Jesuits have done some sterling work in that respect.

[kosta50]

I assumed that in a religion thread most people would assume we all take the Scriptures ultimately on faith!

But there are a lot of lurkers and seekers on this thread as well. Are you trying to reach those who believe or those who don't?

A few years back, my daughter and I visited a Greek Orthodox monastery. The abbess kindly took us on a tour, showing us the beehives where they collect their honey and wax for candles. Orthodox churches, with only few exceptions in America, use pure beeswax candles and 100% pure olive oil for lamps, because both burn without smoke "pure as the faith is," as they say.

She howed us the little chapel all carved in wood, the new church in the making, a beautiful baptismal well, and lots of piously made icons of saints. My daughter noticed that some of them had little glass bubble inserts in the lower right corner and asked what they were.

"A piece of the saint's bone" (a relic) the abbess replied. My daughter look at the icon again, and then at the abbess and asked politely: "How do you know that?" The abbess then said "It came from the Vatican with a certificate." My daughter simply nodded and thanked her and that was the end of that, but as we left the monastery and drove away, she asked me: "But how does the Vatican know?"

Truth is, probably through legend, myth or traditional acceptance—in other words—on faith. I learned a great deal about faith that day from my teenage daughter. Her uncluttered mind came up with a perfect question because what she heard made no sense. It wasn't a question of disbelief but of wonder.

It wasn't the Thomist "show me your wounds and I will believe" imperative made in disbelief. It was a simple question in an attempt to make sense of something presented as fact that made no sense, and of an answer that made even less sense.

More often than not we believe uncritically and never really test ourselves with "how do I know that?" If you do ask yourself, you will inevitably find that, no matter what you say, it fails to answer the question. The truth is: we don't know. It's all faith.

I was using it as an example that even someone as a direct contemporary and follower of Christ did not always believe! Faith is what separated the others from Thomas...

But he wasn't the only one (cf Mat 28:17). This is strange, given that, according to the Gospels, Jesus hints that he will be will killed and will come back, comparing himself to a temple destroyed and rebuilt in three days. Were some of them napping?

If they really believed him, they would have accepted the news of his resurrection not in disbelief but in elation, as something expected and given! As it turns out, none of them believed the women, not even Peter.

Instead they see the resurrected Christ with fear and are convicted only when he eats with them! And even then, as referenced above, some did not believe all the way until his Ascension—even though they all already received the Holy Spirit (John 20:22) prior to that, but not according to others (Act 1:8).

Now, I do believe that Christ will save the world, if and only if the world has "the mind of Christ." It would indeed be a different and new, resurrected world. And I do believe that what the one, catholic and apostolic Church teaches helps people attain the mind of Christ.

[kosta50]

Cronos to Blogger: And yet, you say funding is the same as fund-raising

Fundamental understanding of words is crucial in any concept-formation and a faulty one can lead to a very different and faulty conclusion. Unfortunately, in this age of text-messaging, the language is becoming less exact and it is only a matter of time before the concepts follow the words. We may already be witnessing the progress in action.

[kosta50]

So the Roman soldiers who whipped Christ, who beat Him, who made the crucifix, and who nailed and tied Him to the cross didn't really kill Him, He died a natural death because of exposure and the inability to breathe in an awkward position.

I would say the Church believes Christ died in his human nature when he so willed, when his mission was accomplished in time (remember "It's finished"?), and one second sooner. Being God it happened on his schedule and by his own will, not because Roman soldiers beat him and tortured him.

If you raise funds for a criminal activity (say, you fund the purchase of land and materials for a meth lab), do not expect to be absolved of the resulting crime! It may have been an indirect involvement in the funding of the crusades, but it was funding nevertheless.

The intent was not to raise funds to sack Genoa or Constantinople, to rape and pillage Christian cities. If someone uses charitable donations for a good cause and then misuses them for criminal activity the charity-donors are not liable because their intent was charity, not crime.

[kosta50]

It is not pre-destination! Your life is not pre-determined! However, your life is known from before you were born until well past your time in Heaven. God knows all. ALL. He knows what you will do, before you do it.

Then why not call it what it is—foreknowledge?

[Cronos]

Then why not call it what it is—foreknowledge?

Exactly. Foreknowledge removes the notion of some "elect", superior caste which reeks of hinduism and not Christianity.

[kosta50]

Foreknowledge removes the notion of some "elect", superior caste which reeks of hinduism and not Christianity

I agree, but the term elect comes straight out of Pauline Christianity and is in line with Judaism which is the religion of the "elect."

But Paul takes this one step further: not only does he say that God elected some to salvation, but that he did this before the foundation of the world!

How do we reconcile that with the Church teaching that we condemn oursleves (by our actions – i.e. works-based salvation) rather than that God predestined each and every one of us either to salvation or to hell?

[Cronos]

Apostle Paul. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will” (Eph. 1:3-5).

Tricky...

[kosta50]

Tricky...

Not really. The Protestant soteriology is based on Paul; and the soteriology of the Church on the Gospels. When it comes to who's going to hell, they will quote Eph 1:3-5, and the Church Mat 25:31-46.

But my question was: how does the Church reconcile this?

[Cronos]

I have no idea.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Because it’s part of the mystery of God. If He truly knows all - since the beginning until the end - they surely He must know what our own ends will be. Yet He gave us free will? How can that be?

I see accepting the concept of “foreknowledge” - or, as some call it pre-destination - no more difficult than the concept of the Trinity where God existed as Heavenly Father, his Son Jesus Christ of Heaven and earth, and the earthly Holy Spirit.

Given that acceptance, I see know problem with God knowing how each of us will end up. Unless we believe in the concept of universal salvation (that is, everyone is saved regardless of what happens), then there will be many who WILL be condemned to Hell. God knows who they are, and where the end up. His knowledge did not result in this; the actions of man did. But God knows and grieves for those who never enter His glory. But, it was their choice, and God will leave them to suffer the consequences of their life.

In fact, it is BECAUSE of God’s foreknowledge of our destinies that He sent His Son to die for us! He knew we would never reach the Glory of God, so He gave the ultimate sacrifice. He knew man would never make it - His foreknowledge of our destinies was why.

[blue-duncan]

“But my question was: how does the Church reconcile this?”

How does the church reconcile Joseph’s exoerience in Egypt?

Gen. 45:5, “Now therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither: for God did send me before you to preserve life.”

Gen. 45:7, “And God sent me before you to preserve you a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance.”

Gen. 50:20, “But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.”

[kosta50]

If He truly knows all - since the beginning until the end - they surely He must know what our own ends will be. Yet He gave us free will? How can that be?

That depends if he has anything to do with our end or not; whether he actually makes our choices, or if he simply lets us exercise our free will knowing what our choices will be without forcing us to go either way.

In some people's eyes, a loving Father would be all over you to make sure you don't fail. In other people's eyes, a loving father would set you free because forced love is no love, according to the old adage: those you love, set  them free; if they come back they are yours; if they don't they never were.

Here we see how human perception "determines" what kind of a loving Father God is: a micro managing Jewish yentel, or a laissezfaire urban liberal. On a universal scale he either created a puppet theater or a self-generating carousel. Personally, I believe it's the latter. Calvinists, on the other hand, believe they are hijacked by the Holy Spirit with a divine tractor beam attached to their forehead.

I see accepting the concept of “foreknowledge” - or, as some call it pre-destination - no more difficult than the concept of the Trinity where God existed as Heavenly Father, his Son Jesus Christ of Heaven and earth, and the earthly Holy Spirit.

Foreknowledge is not predestination, and vice versa. I am not sure I understand what you mean by the "earthly" Holy Spirit. Many Protestants claim to be Trinitarian Christians, but their Trinitarian theology agrees with others only in the number of divine Hypostases and not much more. I have a feeling your idea of the Trinity is radically different from how the Church understood it since the 4th century.

Unless we believe in the concept of universal salvation (that is, everyone is saved regardless of what happens), then there will be many who WILL be condemned to Hell

Very few Christians believe in universal salvation. That is a Gnostic heresy taught by Origen and other Gnostics of the time. Most believe that some will be (or are) saved and others will be condemned. The question is whether it is by their doing or God's whim. If you read the last part of Matthew 25,  it's the former. If you prefer Paul it's the latter. it wouldn't be the first time the scrioptures diverge.

God knows who they are, and where the end up. His knowledge did not result in this; the actions of man did. But God knows and grieves for those who never enter His glory. But, it was their choice, and God will leave them to suffer the consequences of their life.

That's the Catholic/Orthodox belief. Man is the one who chooses sin and rejects God and Christ's redemptive sacrifice freely offered to all, and condemns himself. A grieving God, however, is not Catholic/Orthodox belief, since an all-knowing God is never surprized or disappointefd, an eternal God doesn't change and perfect God is not subject to passions.

In fact, it is BECAUSE of God’s foreknowledge of our destinies that He sent His Son to die for us! He knew we would never reach the Glory of God, so He gave the ultimate sacrifice. He knew man would never make it - His foreknowledge of our destinies was why.

That's somewhat circular reasoning, PSS. We tend to believe that God's creation must be seen as intentional, and therefore everything that happens does so as part of God's will and desire and not as something he didn't foresee or permit.  Just as we believe that the Roman soldiers didn't kill Jesus, but rather it was Jesus who determined the hour of his death, nothing man does can affect God's creation. If God knew man would never make it, we must believe it's because he made it that way, or else it is not his world.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

My take is we will never understand how God can know all, yet give us free will. It’s a mystery of God that defies logic. This is where faith enters the equation. We believe it because we do.