Skip to comments.How Old Is Your Church?
Posted on 06/27/2009 10:01:54 AM PDT by Salvation
click here to read article
Hmmm... what does the Bible have to say about this?
Paul writes, in 1 Corinthians 1:
10I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas[a]”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into[b] the name of Paul? 14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospelnot with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
Trail of Blood is a good book, but you have to be careful about some of his claims. Some of them can not be verified today. Some of them aren’t clarified enough and can lead to Baptists being linked with some heretical groups as well.
**I hope you have your fire suit ready!**
Yes, it’s on. LOL!
“Actually there will be at least one Jew in Heaven”
I was addressing the Denomination thing.
I thought about that as I posted, but the discussion seemed to be about Christian Churches. The Jews in Israel have no better friend in the world than the Evangelical Christians in the West, especially in the U.S.
The Old Testament (Tanakh) is from your people.
We are in this together until the end.
We fight the same enemy, and worship the same God. Our perspective is different, but we should not be divided.
We have free will, and ultimately are responsible for our own decisions.
How about Moses and Elijah, also Enoch?
5000 years or a littl over
I don’t understand your point. Catholics don’t worship the Pope either. So what?
Big deal! We go back to Abraham, about 1900 years before that.
It’s interesting reading some of the posts on this thread talk about how it doesn’t matter ... all were started in 33AD .... there are no denominations in heaven ... etc. Yet there are so many theological arguments on FR.
Either it doesn’t matter or it does ... can’t have it both ways, folks.
No. The religion Lutherans practice was founded by the Lord God Almighty in the Garden of Eden with the first promise of the gospel, Genesis 3:15. ;^)
Luther initially started off talking about removing the corruption within The Church -- something that he could have done WITHIN the Church. . . .
Not after the Pope booted him out! That was in 1520. But even for decades after, Luther wanted a general council of the church to deal with the issues. When Trent finally came, after Luther's death, it failed to correct the errors and even anathematized the Lutheran teachings. And Rome has still not corrected her errors on the central article of the Christian faith, i.e., justification. (That JDDJ of ten years ago was a farce, agreed to only by very liberal "Lutherans.")
I don’t see ONE Roman church. I hear hundreds of voices making radically different points all the time.
Most Protestant/evangelical sects don’t preach an “underground” church but rather a “universal” or “invisible” one comprising all people who believe directly on Christ for eternal salvation. Baptists have a long history of bitter difference with the CoC over just this kind of issue, the CoC being almost as dogmatic as the RCC about the unique power of baptism in their local houses of worship, and the Baptists saying no, salvation is based on personal relationship with Christ which in turn is based on hearing the Bible message, and baptism is a ceremony of witness. The Baptists match up with most other Protestants and evangelicals in this regard. The question of canonical Christian scripture was settled before the church got into anything which is anathema to most Protestants and evangelicals (e.g. alliance with a pagan government).
So how old is “my church”? As old as creation.
Pfft! So-called "apostolic succession" does not make a true church; faithfulness to Christ's commands does.
Nobody said it didn’t happen. It isn’t biblical though. There is NOTHING in Scripture to instruct the churches (and there is a LOT of instruction there) to baptize infants or non-believers.
Yes, but these founders didn’t wake up one day and find gold engraved plates revealing a “new Gospel” on those dates. They were taking the existing faith in the direction they felt the Spirit was leading them.
Ping for later
This thread is about 'Churches' and Christianity..
The Catholic Church is the only church that can claim to have been founded by Christ personally. Every other church traces its lineage back to a mere human person such as Martin Luther or John Wesley. The Catholic Church can trace its lineage back to Jesus Christ who appointed St. Peter as the first pope. This line of popes has continued unbroken for almost 2,000 years.It's not about Paganism, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, the Zoroastrians, Islam, the Druids, or the 'gods' of ancient Egypt, Greece or Rome.
God rules, instructs and sanctifies His people through His Church. Under her teaching office, the Catholic Church preserves the Word of God. She is the custodian, keeper, dispenser and interpreter of teachings of Christ. And she accomplishes this under the protection of the Holy Spirit.
Nice try though. Have a nice day.
Ok,....Let's STOP right here! Stop the Protestant bashing!
Lutherans are **Christians**. Christ is the foundation of Christianity! Their faith and church goes back to Christ. Martin Luther merely got their Christian faith ( founded by Christ) back on track, and correctly **reformed** the faith, and threw out the corruption and abuse that had infiltrated it.
You are kind of missing the point of why the protestant churches sprang up, which basically stems from their belief (not altogether unjustified) that the Roman Church had strayed so far from the message and meaning of Christianity with the decadence, corruption and hypocrisy of its clergymen at all levels that it was felt that a clean break and a return to what they believed was the true message of Jesus and the Bible.... The Church of England and the Lutherans still have apostolic succession, as does the Orthodox and Coptic Churches.
The fact that the Bishop of Rome somehow became the most important clergyman is a mere reflection of the fact that Rome was at the time of the foundation of the Papacy the centre of the known world....
***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.
Ummm...you DO realize that only Roman Catholics accept that last statement as true?***
Only Catholics accept that last statement as true.
Tell that to the Greek/Eastern Orthodox Church. They lay as much claim to the direct lineage to Rome as the Catholic Church does.
***Baptists are much older. Baptists organized in England around that time, but to say that is when they started is simply historically inaccurate.***
Do you have any evidence? The earliest Baptist attribution I’ve ever seen is Smyth in Holland.
Here the deal. Most of those churches are called “protestant” churches. A couple are heretical anti-trinitarain cults. It is wrong to lump these cults into the same class as protestant churches. All of the protestant churches in your list affirm both the Apostles Creed and the Nicean Creed which states “I believe in the holy catholic church”. So what does this make those of us who belong to “prostestant” churches? It makes us “protest-ant” that is protesting catholics. All orthodox western Christians are branches from same tree the root of which was established by Jesus Christ in 33 AD. The Roman catholic church is one branch, the partiarchal orthodox churches are another branch. The protestant churches are branches off the roman catholic branch, but we all share the same root.
***I am part Jewish ***
***Islam is what 1300 years old? This thread is retarded and sad that some Catholic apologists have to resort to specious and vapid sophomoric arguments.***
Are you a practicing Jew?
I am a former Catholic.
One of the things that I deeply resent about the Catholic faith was its **cultish** teaching that leaving the faith meant certain damnation in the fires of hell. They were the “true” faith and the only possessors of the ordinances of salvation.
Ok...So I am past that and the Catholic cult no longer has any emotional hold on me.
Generally, the Catholic Church as a lot that is correct about it. Our nation would be stronger if we had a lot more Catholics who truly believed in and followed every word of their catechism.
But...Please, **stop** bashing Protestants as somehow having their faith founded by Luther, Knox, or Henry...or anyone else. Our faith was founded by **Christ**!
***The Catholic Church isnt any different or any better then any of the other sects of the church.***
The Catholic Church isn’t a sect.
***We could always ask how many people were burned at the stake by Baptists vs Catholics, lowest number wins.***
We could also ask which Church preserves the Gospel of Jesus and the Faith that we were instructed in by God and not man. The man with the right map and who is Judged worthy of salvation by the Grace of God gets eternal, well, salvation.
So idiots like you can ask stupid questions.
***They were taking the existing faith in the direction they felt the Spirit was leading them.***
“Felt”? Are the Protestants now claiming to be third grade girls feeling their way through their emotional theology?
There is the Church and all else is outside the Church. You have the free will to choose.
***Ok,....Let’s STOP right here! Stop the Protestant bashing!
Lutherans are **Christians**. Christ is the foundation of Christianity! Their faith and church goes back to Christ. Martin Luther merely got their Christian faith ( founded by Christ) back on track, and correctly **reformed** the faith, and threw out the corruption and abuse that had infiltrated it.***
With his 1000 fornications a day? I doubt it.
***The Catholic Church is the only church that can claim to have been founded by Christ personally.
Tell that to the Greek/Eastern Orthodox Church. They lay as much claim to the direct lineage to Rome as the Catholic Church does.***
The Orthodox Church IS Catholic.
To answer your question from an Eastern Perspective, the Eastern Orthodox Church is The Eastern Orthodox Church, it is the same as it ever was and it has existed since Pentecost...Rome used to be a part of it.
This is a simplifying statement: From Pentecost until the 11th century there was one Christian Church - it was founded by Jesus Christ. It had grown during that time to include many Bishops, but 5 of them were considered pre-eminent: Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch. (By way of further detail, the Egyptian Coptics and the Ethopian Orthodox churches broke communion after the 3rd ecumenical council. These churches still exist but are what is known as “Non-Chalcedonian,” meaning they did not accept the rulings of the Council of Chalcedon).
Anyway, of those 5, a seat of honorary primacy was held by the Bishop of Rome, owing largely to the fact that the first Bishop of Rome was St. Peter - who was also recognized as the leader and primary spokesman for the 12 Disciples.
Differences in language and culture (as the Empire expanded) and later philosophy and theology began to isolate Rome from the rest of the Bishoprics, or “Sees.” Friction intensified over several centuries between Rome and the rest of the Sees, which were separated from Rome by the Mediterranean as well as primary language (Latin vs. Greek). This escalated to a particular event in the year 1054.
The Eastern Church has always viewed Church decisions to be made in a conciliar fashion, while the Roman Church evolved as a Monarchy. The Eastern Church as a rule eschews instituting ecumenical decisions made by one man.
For the third time in this posting, and for the benefit of my FReeper brothers and sisters who may be adherents of the Church of Rome, the things I say here are the Eastern Perspective.
Protestantism developed out of the Western Church - out of the Roman Church. There has not been a similar “Reformation” from the Eastern Church.
A little joke that puts that in perspective...
How many Orthodox Christians does it take to change a light bulb?
Change? What is this, “CHANGE?”
What is the History of Your Church?
In many ways it is a **cult**. It threats its members with eternal damnation if they leave it. It claims to have the **only** and **true** ordinances and priesthood needed for salvation.
If that isn't a cult then what is?
Then why aren’t Lutherans “catholic”? Why aren’t protestants “catholic”?
Thanks for the laughs.
Propoganda pure and simple. And it isn’t like the Catholic church hasn’t had huge blemishes over the year. It was a bastion of sin and corruption for centuries which is what led to the Reformation.
Nice christian attitude.
Obviously you feel anger. Pray about it.
Tell that to the Greek/Eastern Orthodox Church. They lay as much claim to the direct lineage to Rome as the Catholic Church does.Hey don't argue with me.
However the Greek, Eastern Orthodox and/or Russian Orthodox (pick a name) are all 'Catholics' too. Yes there was a split (Great Schism) over the 'Bishop of Rome' being 'supreme', but reconciliation is ongoing.
There’s nothing in scripture to instruct the churches to baptise or NOT baptise infants
At midnight Mass one of the priests serving was introduced as being Eastern Orthodox. What are the major differences?
So maybe Roman Catholics will come back to the one true church and no longer be a sect?
We’ve talked about this before. There are many who claim to be “former” Catholics out there. The facts are that once you are baptized as a Catholic you are always a Catholic.
Welcome home at any time.
Where did you ever hear that? Don't believe everything you hear. The New Testament does not say anything about the location of baptism or the identity of the administrator making any difference. A believing penitent could get Mahmoud Ahmajinedad to baptize him in the Persian Gulf and it wouldn't make any difference to God. Of course it would make a differnce to the beliver's physical well-being if Ahmajinedad wouldn't let him up. :)
What does the Bible say in Acts 2:38?
Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins...
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
1 Peter 3:21:
The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ