Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

God lost His Truth, His Church? (A civil discussion regarding such issues)

Posted on 01/01/2003 12:24:46 PM PST by Jael

Submitted for discussion, the following statement (and all that can follow from it....

"Finally, by God's grace, the central truths of the Bible were rediscovered by Martin Luther, John Calvin, and other Reformers."

1.) Did God lose his Truth? Or hide it? Or not allow it to be seen or known? (During the period of time in question.)

2.) Why would something that God has promised would continue, need to be "rediscovered"?

3.) Did He allow a period of time to exist where his church did not?

4.) If one holds to the fact that Rome was not the true church, where was the Body before Rome, and during Rome, but before Luther or Calvin?

5.) How does your belief regarding Rome effect your belief about Scripture? Did God give His Word to Rome? If so, why isn't she orthodox according to Scripture?

In an effort to more fully understand my Calvinist friends, I went searching for information. I found that statement on the website for the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). I copied it from there, but I believe it probably fits a number of the Calvinistic belief systems. (Different Calvinistic churches.)

In starting this thread, I request that we check our egos at the door. I'd like to discuss this, but I am not interested in people who brag about what they know but never use any Scripture to validate their claims.

Also, this isn't an anti Catholic thread, but I will warn my catholic friends that they will not care for the beliefs many of us have regarding Rome. That doesn't lessen our respect for them as individuals. I invite them to participate here as well, if so desired.

I have friends in other religions who have said (it's a cop out I think, but bear with me) that they could never be __________ (such and such a denomination) because the people who disagree with each other are so rude.

I am not saying I haven't ever been,
but let's try not to be, ok.?

You never know who is watching and reading, and your testimony matters.

2 Timothy 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

TOPICS: Activism; Apologetics; Catholic; Charismatic Christian; Current Events; Ecumenism; Evangelical Christian; General Discusssion; History; Mainline Protestant; Ministry/Outreach; Moral Issues; Orthodox Christian; Other Christian; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics; Theology
KEYWORDS: apostasy; believers; bible; christ; church; creeds; god; history; jesus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201 next last
Also, regarding Timothy 2:26, when we get that far in the discussion, (or address it now):-)
God say that some are taken captive by the snare of the devil "by his will."

If Satan has a will that can take people captive, but God says they can be recovered by teaching, and by acknowledging the truth, does that mean that the person can choose? Or not? Is the will of Satan stronger than the will of God here? What about the person's own will?

1 posted on 01/01/2003 12:24:46 PM PST by Jael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jael; RnMomof7
If ya gonna get anywhere ya gotta have someone here to talk, ya need to put together a ping list Jael, so folks will know ya posted something. :)

Mom ping this to your calvin list.


2 posted on 01/01/2003 12:58:12 PM PST by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jael
If one believes that Catholic Church was "hopeless" at the time of the Reformation, could one make a case for there being other groups that "carried the torch" through the "darkness" of the Middle Ages?

Personally, I don't think so. The well-known "Trail of Blood", for example, has to embrace incredibly heretical (by the standards of Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox!) sects in order to maintain continuity. I see no means by which to establish a claim of a "pure" church, "untainted" by popery.

So how does one solve the obvious problem, from a reformed standpoint? Quite simply by realizing that the truth never "died": while the Church had many problems, and was in need of reform, vital truths lived on, though they may have been limited to individuals. I can gather a number of individuals, mostly monks, whom one might easily consider "semi-evangelical": but still very much within the Church. Were there any that espoused fully Protestant ideas? Probably not- and one must be careful not to strain the beliefs of medieval individuals so as to make them "Reformed".

3 posted on 01/01/2003 12:58:35 PM PST by Cleburne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain; Bob Z.
Oh! I see! Are there any other Bible Believers around to ping??

How are you folks? We had a great meeting with a home fellowship last night! Was just so grand to ring in the New Year praising God, repenting, praying, singing hymns, and singing from the Psalms!!

I just was so amazed at thinking of where I would of been if God had not of saved me.
4 posted on 01/01/2003 1:09:25 PM PST by Jael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cleburne
So you believe that Rome was the true church? She just went bad over time?
5 posted on 01/01/2003 1:11:31 PM PST by Jael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cleburne
I see no means by which to establish a claim of a "pure" church, "untainted" by popery.

In 988 Orthodoxy was brought to Russia by Prince Vladimir, where it flourished.

The years of 1350-1550 were the culmination, considered the "golden age of Orthodoxy" in Russia.

In the eastern church we were physically isolated from the rest of the world and protected as well. In Russia some of the most profound spiritual times were during the middle ages.
Andrei Rublev comes to mind.

6 posted on 01/01/2003 1:26:14 PM PST by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jael
If by Rome you mean the Catholic Church, sprung from the times of the Church Fathers, then yes. The Roman Catholic Church (or, more correctly for early medieval times and before, simply Catholic) did not suddenly arise from the dew replete with all her doctrine that we know today; nor did her ecclesiastical structure and authority. If you do not consider the Church Fathers and their immediate heirs as part of the "true Church", then who was? Certainly not the heresies of the time. "Doctrinal corruption", if you will, was a process.

There was also the problem that much of the medieval church simply was not equiped to propoagate its doctrine to the people. While some of said doctrine was quite sound, local parishes often did a miserable job of spreading it. And corruption was rampant, particularly at the time of the Reformers. These things, along with the general amaglation of bad doctrine, brought about the Reformation.

7 posted on 01/01/2003 1:30:37 PM PST by Cleburne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cleburne
If you do not consider the Church Fathers and their immediate heirs as part of the "true Church", then who was?

I couldn't consider them as such. Doctrinally speaking, or in any way, I don't see Rome as ever being a part of Biblical Christianity.

8 posted on 01/01/2003 1:39:32 PM PST by Jael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cleburne
The Orthodox East was not an oppressor of any "Trail of Blood" groups. Yes, there was torture and brutality within the jurisdiction of the Roman church but the neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the Roman Pope's authority extended beyond Europe. The rest of the world was under the authority of the Bishops of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Moscow, and Constantinople- all equal to the Pope and all independent of Roman Catholicism.
9 posted on 01/01/2003 1:53:51 PM PST by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MarMema
Well, Eastern Orthodoxy isn't completely untainted. Just a smidgen:)

There was a magnificent display of some 125 Russian icons and religious artifacts at our local art museum recently (In South Mississippi- it's actually quite nice, for a largely rural region. A balance of largely traditional art, a sprinkling of "modern"-gagh- and a fine collection of Native American baskets). I don't recall any icons by Rublev (or on his design rather, as most of them were from early-modern to turn of the century periods), though I did not get to view it as well as I would have liked. I came back a few days later only to learn the exhibit had just been packed... I don't agree with many of the practise surronding icons, but they are certainly beautiful works of art and devotion.

10 posted on 01/01/2003 2:09:36 PM PST by Cleburne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jael; RnMomof7
I have often been told that we Orthodox are closest to the high church Lutherans than any other Christian body. I found this interesting discussion to share.

"Martin Luther, the famous German Augustinian monk turned Reformer, disagreed on a number of points of faith and practice with the Roman Catholic Church and so began the Reformation and the Lutheran Church.

Luther was actually very well disposed toward the Eastern Orthodox Church. For example, he esteemed the way the Orthodox Church held services and read the Bible in languages understood by the people, distributed Holy Communion in both Kinds and had a married clergy.

During a debate with his Roman Catholic theological opponents, Luther chided the Roman side for casting a slur on the Eastern Orthodox Church. He reminded them that the Eastern Church was half of the Church of Christ and that, as far as he was concerned, it was the "better half" (which is where that popular term comes to us from!).

In terms of the differences between Orthodox Christianity and Lutheranism, that is sometimes difficult to determine.

For example, if we say that the Orthodox Church is different from the Lutheran Church because the former honours the Virgin Mary and the Saints, that would not be true for the entire Lutheran tradition and Church.

As you know, Martin Luther himself venerated the Virgin Mary throughout his life, as did the early Lutherans. He was often portrayed holding a Rosary by the early Lutherans and he wrote movingly about Mary and the "Hail Mary" prayer!

There are High Church Lutherans in Europe and elsewhere who likewise venerate the Virgin Mary and the Saints. There is the "Die Sammlung" movement in Germany which seeks church unity and a revival of Lutheranism's Catholic heritage, as is the case also in Sweden and Finland.

I have also corresponded with Lutheran Ministers (who prefer to be called "Priests") who share with Orthodoxy almost every single point of faith - or at least I found it difficult to determine where they weren't "Orthodox" save for the fact that they were not in formal communion with the Orthodox Church.

And there are Lutherans who, once they've studied the early Luther's writings and the vision of early Lutheranism, become Orthodox themselves e.g. Jaroslav Pelikan is a recent example of a famous Lutheran scholar who became Orthodox.

Orthodoxy differs from Protestantism in general in a number of ways. One way it differs is in its faith concerning the way in which Christ saves us.

Protestantism (and I'm not necessarily equating all of the Lutheran heritage with it - that would be unfair and untrue) believes that Christ died by way of substitution e.g. taking our place to placate God the Father for the offense given by Original Sin and our other sins.

Orthodoxy believes that God became man in Christ to heal us of the disease of sin and sinfulness that is in our nature. Christ's death on the Cross destroyed the record of our sins before God. By dying, Christ gave us life. He rose us from the death of sin by His Resurrection and He gave us the opportunity to participate, by the Grace of the Holy Spirit, in Him and through Him in the life of the Holy Trinity and the Communion of Saints. We are called to become transfigured by the Divine-Human Christ through the Holy Spirit and become Christ-like - something that Martin Luther actually affirmed himself when he said we are called to become "little Christs."


11 posted on 01/01/2003 2:11:55 PM PST by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jael
Then what happened to the church after, say, AD 90?
12 posted on 01/01/2003 2:12:11 PM PST by Cleburne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cleburne
Well, Eastern Orthodoxy isn't completely untainted

We do have a few blots in our history. We were not always as good to the jews in Russia during certain historical times. And certainly the Old Believers were persecuted, at least by taxes if nothing else, in parts of Russia during Peter the Great's time.

13 posted on 01/01/2003 2:13:50 PM PST by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cleburne
but they are certainly beautiful works of art and devotion

In our faith we consider them to be theology in art. As if the Bible were made into pictures, so to speak. And many of our icons are just that, biblical stories made into art. Thank you for your kind words. I do love your state of residence, having traveled there several times.

In Facing East our fellow EO Frederica M.G. writes of a Georgian preacher whom I have taken great interest in, who recently passed away I understand.
Howard Finster.
Are you familiar with him?

God is Love

If You Only Had One Sweet Son
And You Gave His Life To Save
Ten Wicked Men. And And They
Returned And Denied That You
Gave Your Only Son For Them
And Said You Child Never Exist
No One Died For Us. Please Go
Right Now And Call You Child To
You And Measure You Love For Him
And Turn And Look At The Most
Sinful Man You Know And
Think If You Would Trade Your
Presus Son For Him. God Is Love."

14 posted on 01/01/2003 2:22:00 PM PST by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MarMema
Howard Finster
15 posted on 01/01/2003 2:24:26 PM PST by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: All
More from the link above, on Howard Finster.

"Along the way Finster began to do some painting -- mostly on scrap wood and cut-out panels, depicting angels, heavenly scenes, animals, and portraits with large, luminous eyes fringed with long lashes like the rays of the sun. Then he heard a call to "build a paradise and decorate it with the Bible." (Finster says he received "messages" and "visions" from God throughout his life, starting at the age of three). He bought a plot of wasteland near his home in Summerville, Ga., and called it "Paradise Gardens." On those acres he created artworks, sculptures, paintings, and buildings, always seeking to demonstrate the glory of God.

He didn't leave it up to visitors to guess what he was doing; Paradise Gardens' most prominent feature was hundreds of signs tacked up to explain the Gospel and the lessons the artworks sought to convey. "I built this park of broken pieces to try to mend a broken world," read one sign. Due to Finster's limited education, correct spelling was not always a feature of his work, but his hard-hitting wisdom made it unnecessary. Another message at Paradise Gardens appeared on an oil-drum lid nailed to a pine tree. Painted sky blue, then inscribed in red and indigo, it read "Dying daily is a greator sacrifice than dying dead." Misspelled, yes, but no less true because of it."

I guess what I really want to say is that I think this backwoods Georgian preacher, with almost no education and clearly lacking the ability to spell, has/had it all. No church required. He knew the Truth.

Quite simply, that "God is Love" and "daily dying" is harder than dying "dead".

And I will say that he did not require the Eastern Orthodox church or any other to find this truth.

16 posted on 01/01/2003 2:30:08 PM PST by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MarMema
Oh yes, one more important truth from Howard Finster -

"For my kingdom is not of this world."

17 posted on 01/01/2003 2:35:57 PM PST by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Calvinist_Dark_Lord
18 posted on 01/01/2003 2:41:36 PM PST by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MarMema
Thank you for the ping. i may have to depart for a time to go pretend that i am a social person, but here we go.

First, i have a problem with the implied premise of the questions presented to us for discussion...objection your honor, assumes as fact matters not in evidence (begging the question). Perhaps it would be better if we dealt with them one at a time or had a separate thread for each one. Opinions? i could be mistaken about this, since i've been going on litte sleep and higher brain functions are beginning (?) to suffer, not to mention my typing skills!
19 posted on 01/01/2003 3:46:10 PM PST by Calvinist_Dark_Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain; OrthodoxPresbyterian; Jerry_M; the_doc; CCWoody; Matchett-PI; ...
20 posted on 01/01/2003 3:53:34 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson