Four Tragic Shifts In The Visible Church 180-400 A.D.

[JM]

1. The church portrayed in the New Testament was a dynamic organism, a living body with many parts. The church from around 180 A.D. onwards became an increasingly hardened institution with a fixed and complex hierarchy.

2. The early church was marked by the manifestation of a polyform ministry by which edification and the meeting of needs were accomplished through the gifts of all the brethren. The post-apostolic church moved more and more toward a uniform conception of church offices which separated ministry from the 'laity' and limited significant ministry to the 'clergy'.

3. The church of the first and most of the second centuries was characterized by cycles of intense difficulty and persecution - it was a suffering body. With the advent of Constantine the church became protected, favored and ultimately sanctioned as the state religion by the Roman state, and thus became an institution at ease.

4. The New Testament church, with no small measure of vulnerability, depended on the Holy Spirit to hold the brethren together and to lead them in ministry. Later, the church trusted in itself as a very powerful institution, along with its many rules, rites and offices to secure visible unity among its adherents.

http://www.5solas.org/media.php?id=248
Anyone want to talk about this article?

 

[Imagican]

Interesting points JM. Enough to make one 'wonder' aint it? Yet even as all these took place, there WERE still those that were willing to continue to be persecuted to 'follow The Spirit rather than the churches. Still those that were willing to be PARTS instead of LEADERS. And even leaders that would accept that The Spirit WAS able to offer THROUGH any. Add it all up and what do we learn?

MEC

 

[Latin Rite Catholic]

Interesting

The way I see it this article, which is an opinion, can be taken one of the following ways;

1. The New Testament Church is not The Roman Catholic Church in the first place so this article is bologna.

2. The New Testament Church is in fact The Roman Catholic Church this article is talking about, and I largely agree with the article, and don't agree with all the current teachings of the The Roman Church, so I choose to separate myself from it.

3. The New Testament Church is in fact The Roman Catholic Church this article is talking about, and even if some of the opinions in the article were correct, The Roman Catholic Church is still The New Testament Church no matter what. Therefore I will not separate myself from it.


I pick 3

there WERE still those that were willing to continue to be persecuted to 'follow The Spirit rather than the churches.

I'm afraid that those who rebelled against The Church, for the most part are of as much a questionable character, as anyone who remained in it.

 

[ZeroTX]

Interesting claims/statements. I will give my opinion on the author's opinion:

1. The church portrayed in the New Testament was a dynamic organism, a living body with many parts. The church from around 180 A.D. onwards became an increasingly hardened institution with a fixed and complex hierarchy.

A "hardened" institution whose traditions evolved naturally to keep order and truth in teaching as the Church grew exponentially in size. If you have millions of believers who have no place of real authority to turn for answers, then what do you have? Witness the fundamentalist/evangelical movement, particularly in the U.S. Millions of believers believing very different things about the same gospel, because they mistakenly believe they have no authority for objective truth. Sola Scriptura, with thousands of different interpretations.

The "complex hierarchy" grew only as complex as needed for the exponential growth in Christian populations. Leading a flock of hundreds is substantially different than leading a flock of 100,000 which is substantially different than 1,000,000. The Church scaled the hierarchy just as the scale of Christianity grew. Even in the time of the apostles, Paul and other apostles had to write primarily to help keep groups together and to correct errors that were already being made in teachings! Imagine that times 1,000... times 10,000... How could the Church not expand to accomodate this and to keep truth objective and to keep the teachings true to Christ?... I really don't understand what the expectation is for how it should have been handled. In any case, under the guidance of Christ's Church, this is how it WAS handled. Does this author suggest that this Church was somehow divergent from Christ's teachings?

2. The early church was marked by the manifestation of a polyform ministry by which edification and the meeting of needs were accomplished through the gifts of all the brethren. The post-apostolic church moved more and more toward a uniform conception of church offices which separated ministry from the 'laity' and limited significant ministry to the 'clergy'.

Examples? Christ's ministry was always under the leadership of bishops (which later were sub-divided, based on size, geography, need, authority level/experience, etc.). The laity were never prevented from spreading the message of Christ. Quite the opposite. Do you think the Church expanded to 1 billion believers by priests and clergy alone?! That's pretty preposterous, don't you think? The laypersons spreadng the message does not supercede the fact that Christ did convey certain duties to clergy alone, authority passed down from the Apostles to successors, who now serve Christ in that capacity.

3. The church of the first and most of the second centuries was characterized by cycles of intense difficulty and persecution - it was a suffering body. With the advent of Constantine the church became protected, favored and ultimately sanctioned as the state religion by the Roman state, and thus became an institution at ease.

So..... not being tortured and persecuted made the Church less valid, somehow?... This easing up of persecution allowed the gospel of Christ to be spread to millions!! How great and awesome that is! Why in the world would or should we prefer difficulty and persecution to freedom to spread the gospel and to increase the number of believers?... This sounds like an amazing blessing... I dare say, a gift from God. Furthermore, plenty of Christians still suffer, even to this day, under oppressive governments. Do we consider them better Christians than those of us who live in free nations? They are certainly having their faith tested on a daily basis, but were it not for Constantine's decisions, Christendom would have certainly taken much longer to spread Christ's gospel.

4. The New Testament church, with no small measure of vulnerability, depended on the Holy Spirit to hold the brethren together and to lead them in ministry. Later, the church trusted in itself as a very powerful institution, along with its many rules, rites and offices to secure visible unity among its adherents.

The Church, an institution created by Christ, trusted in itself. Examples of what he means? In any case, the Church is indeed an institution created by Christ. Rules? The rules are to bring us closer to Christ. Do we not all obey rules, commandments, moral absolutes? Rites? You mean like Baptism... or the Eucharist... or Marriage?.... And this is bad, because?... This is a fundamentally flawed view of Christianty, whereby the present form of protestantism is viewed as an example of how the Church should have been in the past. Why should I believe in the independently developed doctrine of someone from the 20th-21st century when I can read the words of the Apostles and their immediate successors or those only 2-3 generations removed, vs. 2,000 years removed?... This is non-sense. It's a skewed view.

Also note that these "scary rites" and such that the author seems to criticize were there before 180AD, and were instituted by Christ. Just because there isn't a chapter written about them in the Bible, doesn't mean Christ didn't teach it. A fundamental difference between modern day evangelical/fundamentalist theology and Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican/Lutheran theology, which recognizes the richness of Church history and doesn't rely on modern day man-made interpretations of only ONE source of truth, the Scriptures... when there is a wealth of truth within the Church as a whole, including and ESPECIALLY the early writings of the church, immediately after the apostolic age. Something that is all to often ignored or believed by many to not really exist... I assure you, it does.

-Michael

 

[JM]

This reponses are non-sense. There from a skewed view.

;-)

 

[ZeroTX]

This reponses are non-sense. There from a skewed view.

;-)

Care to elaborate, with specifics or do you stand by your lack of ability to make a point related to the topic at hand?

Please, no more drive-by scripture quotes or cut/pastes.

-Michael

 

[JM]

Care to elaborate, with specifics or do you stand by your lack of ability to make a point related to the topic at hand?

Made a point but you weren't able to grasp it.

Please, no more drive-by scripture quotes or cut/pastes.

-Michael

No more Scripture? :silly:

Your answers show a lack of understanding concerning the God breathed nature of Scripture, the nature of the new birth of a believer and ignorance of the fractures within the RCC Church. You also have a profound lack of understanding the nature of the RCC Church. Your tradition tells you want to believe, everything is flitered via tradition. Considering tradition is of man, you follow the traditions of man.

The circularity of the traditional church argument:

Q: How do you know your interpretation of tradition is correct?

A: Tradition proves it.

Q: How is Tradition the authority?

A: Tradition proves it.

Q: How do you know you have the right Tradition?

A: Tradition proves it.

_________________________

Back to the op and your post. How is it the RC's and the EO's have Bishops in the same jurisdictional diocese? This is clearly against Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox tradition.

Would you like to explain a little about the jurisdictional wars between Bishops of different diocese, or maybe Steve could add a little?

jm

 

[ZeroTX]

No more Scripture? :silly:

No, what I said was no more drive-by scripture quotes. Again, you selectively respond and change the meanings of what we say.

Your answers show a lack of understanding concerning the God breathed nature of Scripture, the nature of the new birth of a believer and ignorance of the fractures within the RCC Church. You also have a profound lack of understanding the nature of the RCC Church. Your tradition tells you want to believe, everything is flitered via tradition. Considering tradition is of man, you follow the traditions of man.

There you go again, deliberately interjecting garbage to throw the topic off, so you never have to actually respond to the specifics of the thread. Folks in this board are great at this.

The circularity of the traditional church argument:

Q: How do you know your interpretation of tradition is correct?

A: Tradition proves it.

Q: How is Tradition the authority?

A: Tradition proves it.

Q: How do you know you have the right Tradition?

A: Tradition proves it.

So how is this less circular than the argument that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God... even though the Bible never says that? What is it that says that? Tradition, perhaps? It's not the "evil T word"... it simply means what we have taught, always taught, and continue to believe to be true.

Sola Scriptura is a tradition. In this case, a tradition made-up in the 16th century and also in this case one that does not ring true.

_________________________

Back to the op and your post. How is it the RC's and the EO's have Bishops in the same jurisdictional diocese? This is clearly against Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox tradition.

Would you like to explain a little about the jurisdictional wars between Bishops of different diocese, or maybe Steve could add a little?

jm

Are you simply ignorant of Christian history or are you seeking to throw out another strawman argument that has NOTHING to do with the thread topic?... This happens in EVERY thread here that involves anything remotely Catholic... or for that matter anything pre-Baptist, heh.

But, in case you are truly unaware of Church history, the Eastern churches went into schism approximately 1,000 years ago. Since then, they have operated within their own diocesan organization, primarily only in the East. However, since the heavy immigration to the United States and elsewhere, people brought their cultural churches with them, including Eastern Orthodoxy. As such, there are regions which have both Catholic authority and Orthodox authority in place. The Catholic view is that the Orthodox, having gone into schism by pridefully denying the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, but still have valid apostolic succession. Some of those Eastern churches recognized the folly of their prideful predecessors and decided to come back into full communion with the Church, and are now the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church, whereas those you refer to as "Roman" Catholics are the Western Rite of the Catholic Church. We pray daily for the healing of the rift caused by the schism as well as the even greater rift created by the splintering of the Reformation era. That being said, the Eastern Orthodox hold a different view of all of this, while we as Catholics hold that both of us still retain apostolic succession, whereas the created-from-thin-air churches that are proliferating in the U.S. especially are in no way linked to the original Church other than in spirit, which makes for an imperfect union.

God bless,

Michael

 

[JM]

No more Scripture? :silly:

No, what I said was no more drive-by scripture quotes. Again, you selectively respond and change the meanings of what we say.

[quote:60dad]Your answers show a lack of understanding concerning the God breathed nature of Scripture, the nature of the new birth of a believer and ignorance of the fractures within the RCC Church. You also have a profound lack of understanding the nature of the RCC Church. Your tradition tells you want to believe, everything is flitered via tradition. Considering tradition is of man, you follow the traditions of man.

There you go again, deliberately interjecting garbage to throw the topic off, so you never have to actually respond to the specifics of the thread. Folks in this board are great at this.[/quote:60dad]

Sure, I'm the one interjecting garbage, better re-read your own posts.

The circularity of the traditional church argument:

Q: How do you know your interpretation of tradition is correct?

A: Tradition proves it.

Q: How is Tradition the authority?

A: Tradition proves it.

Q: How do you know you have the right Tradition?

A: Tradition proves it.

So how is this less circular than the argument that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God... even though the Bible never says that? What is it that says that? Tradition, perhaps? It's not the "evil T word"... it simply means what we have taught, always taught, and continue to believe to be true.

It's not. In fact, all arguments have to come back to some authority, we agree. What we disagree on is what authority.

Sola Scriptura is a tradition. In this case, a tradition made-up in the 16th century and also in this case one that does not ring true.

A case can be made for both tradition and sola scriptura. I've posted massive quotes from the fathers before, do you need to see them again?

_________________________

Back to the op and your post. How is it the RC's and the EO's have Bishops in the same jurisdictional diocese? This is clearly against Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox tradition.

Would you like to explain a little about the jurisdictional wars between Bishops of different diocese, or maybe Steve could add a little?

jm

Are you simply ignorant of Christian history or are you seeking to throw out another strawman argument that has NOTHING to do with the thread topic?... This happens in EVERY thread here that involves anything remotely Catholic... or for that matter anything pre-Baptist, heh.

Nope. As most folks know on this forum I studied and attended a Greek Orthodox Church for 2 years and even went to Pope Stock/World Youth Day while studying with the RC's.

But, in case you are truly unaware of Church history, the Eastern churches went into schism approximately 1,000 years ago. Since then, they have operated within their own diocesan organization, primarily only in the East. However, since the heavy immigration to the United States and elsewhere, people brought their cultural churches with them, including Eastern Orthodoxy. As such, there are regions which have both Catholic authority and Orthodox authority in place. The Catholic view is that the Orthodox, having gone into schism by pridefully denying the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, but still have valid apostolic succession. Some of those Eastern churches recognized the folly of their prideful predecessors and decided to come back into full communion with the Church, and are now the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church, whereas those you refer to as "Roman" Catholics are the Western Rite of the Catholic Church. We pray daily for the healing of the rift caused by the schism as well as the even greater rift created by the splintering of the Reformation era. That being said, the Eastern Orthodox hold a different view of all of this, while we as Catholics hold that both of us still retain apostolic succession, whereas the created-from-thin-air churches that are proliferating in the U.S. especially are in no way linked to the original Church other than in spirit, which makes for an imperfect union.

God bless,

Michael

The Orthodox would respond:

But, in case you are truly unaware of Church history, the Western churches known as the Latin Church went into schism approximately 1,000 years ago. Since then, they have operated within their own diocesan organization, primarily only in the West. However, since the heavy penetration into the former Soviet Union and other Eastern countries, people brought their cultural churches with them, including Western “Catholicism.†As such, there are regions, which have both Catholic authority and Orthodox authority in place. The Orthodox view is that the Catholic, having gone into schism by pride fully promoting the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, but still have valid apostolic succession. Some of Eastern churches committed a great folly and seeking, pride fully, entered into full communion with the Papal Rome, and is now the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church, whereas those you refer to, as "Roman" Catholics are the Western Rite of the Catholic Church. We pray daily for the healing of the rift caused by the schism as well as the even greater rift created by the splintering of the Reformation era, but we also view Romanism as the first real Protestant group. That being said, the Latin’s hold a different view of all of this, while we as Orthodox hold that both of us still retain apostolic succession, whereas the created-from-thin-air churches that are proliferating in the U.S. especially are in no way linked to the original Church other than in spirit, which makes for an imperfect union.

I’ll add, who’s correct? How do we know? Who told you? What you suggest from your response is based on assuming the RCC is the correct Church. This is the assumption. You can't prove it.

jm :robot:

 

[ZeroTX]

I’ll add, who’s correct? How do we know? Who told you? What you suggest from your response is based on assuming the RCC is the correct Church. This is the assumption. You can't prove it.

jm :robot:

JM,

We agree on one thing: That the only two churches who have a valid argument as the original church are the Orthodox and the Catholics. I agree completely with you.

As to the reason for my decision to choose Catholic over Orthodox, despite my initial misgivings about the papacy, it is simple: I read as much as I could from the early Church, and it was clear to me that the Bishop of Rome was always the leader of the Church. I also interpret Scripture to indicate that Christ appointed Peter to the head of the Church on earth, so it made sense that his successors would retain that role. This is the primary area where the Orthodox and Catholics disagree (along with a few doctrinal issues, that I consider minor and have in many ways been argued for hundreds of years before the schism). I respect the Orthodox Christians as complete members of the Body of Christ. Some Orthodox feel that way about Catholics, while others do not.

As a human being, my only option is to read, pray, study and seek God's guidance. For me, that study and guidance led me to the Catholic Church. It could just as well have led me to the Orthodox Church. I do also feel that the original differences between the West and the East were regional and cultural, and as I am a westerner, the western church makes the most sense for me, along with the fact that I recognize the Pope as the leader of the Church on earth.

A book that I read that really brought it home for me was Upon This Rock by Stephen K. Ray (available on Amazon). He himself was on a journey to determine if the papacy was valid for his own spiritual and intellectual well-being, and the result was this book, which is at least 50% primary source material from the New Testament times through the 500's AD. It's a great read, whether you agree with the papacy or not, as it is a nice, concise compilation of early Church writings.

God bless,

Michael

 

[thessalonian]

Looks like another ever changing protestant theory about history. Constantine? Mystery Babylon? Fell after the seventh Ecumenical Council? Ignatius started the Catholic Church? How many more theories are there?

If you look at the writings of Igantius, Clement, and Irenaus before 180 you see the hierarchy already there. I'll try give this more time later. I just skimmed the article.

One thing is for sure. You don't see any sign of any baptists before 400. :

Jason, you like to hide behind "you can't prove it". Well that is what faith is about and the sad fact is that you haven't proven much either so what is the point of "you can't prove it". The Church is a greater mystery than human proofs can reason out. Yet it is not in the slightest illogical.

 

[Imagican]

Thess,

The REASON that there is so little evidence of THE CHURCH is that those that were actually a 'part' of The Church were forced into hiding BEFORE the RCC was formed and even MORE SO AFTER. This doesn't take a whole lot of understanding to REALIZE the 'truth'. And for hundreds and hundreds of years EVEN despite the RCC's persecution of The Church, there STILL remained a remnant. Just as today there are STILL a 'few' members of The Body. I admit, they have dwindled to JUST a 'few', but the will of God is that there remain at LEAST a 'few' until Christ's return. THEN ALL knees WILL bow to Our King. God will STILL be God and His Son will THEN be Our King.

That you have chosen to follow the teachings of men rather than the offering of God is 'your choice' and should in NO way cause you the angst that you so often exhibit. Your choice IS your choice and I fault you NOT for it. But I don't agree with the choice you have made and would warn you and others to 'back away' from 'man-made' theology and simply accept Christ into one's heart and build a relationship with the Father. Gathering IS important, but acceptance of denominations or 'man-made' tradition is NOT what God wants for us.

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

The REASON that there is so little evidence of THE CHURCH is that those that were actually a 'part' of The Church were forced into hiding BEFORE the RCC was formed and even MORE SO AFTER.

What evidence do you offer for such nonsense? The Catholic Church was being persecuted by Rome. How were THEY persecuting anyone? They weren't in power nor did they have any local support from military or political powers before Constantine.

And for hundreds and hundreds of years EVEN despite the RCC's persecution of The Church, there STILL remained a remnant.

Yes, these people call themselves Gnostics, Manichaeans, Donatists, Monatists, Marcionists, etc... Every heretic group has their own name. However, when someone asks "where is the Church of Christ?", they didn't point to any of those groups, but the Catholic Church led by the Bishop of Rome, says St. Augustine... This "remnant" had NO linkage to each other, thus, they can't be called a true remnant in line with the OT useage. A true remnant would have the same beliefs over many years, as God would supposedly guide them. However, this premise quickly collapses when one analyzes the various "remnant" groups. They ALL had different ideas and beliefs that varied widely. They were related in only one thing - they had left the Church of Christ.

Just as today there are STILL a 'few' members of The Body. I admit, they have dwindled to JUST a 'few', but the will of God is that there remain at LEAST a 'few' until Christ's return. THEN ALL knees WILL bow to Our King. God will STILL be God and His Son will THEN be Our King.

No doubt, you claim to be one of those "few" members of the Body...

Gathering IS important, but acceptance of denominations or 'man-made' tradition is NOT what God wants for us.

God reveals Himself THROUGH men. Accept it. We rely on the witness of other men to even have the faith necessary to believe that Jesus Christ WAS God. That is how God works.

Regards

 

[thessalonian]

Good post fsd. Ah yes, no evidence is the evidence he presents. Silence. It's golden to his ears. With it he can make up any history he wants and justify ignoring the history that there is, except when it suits his needs to bring it up in bits and pieces and out of context quotes. Malice is the word that comes to mind.