History

[Orthodoxy]

Why is the Historical record of "the Church" ignored by the Protestant Reformation?

 

[PDoug]

Why is the Historical record of "the Church" ignored by the Protestant Reformation?

For the same reason the historical records of the Jewish religious organizations and Israel were ignored by the prophets and by Christ. God does not reside in any institution per se. God resides in people of faith that bear fruit - and in whatever organizations they may form. As soon as these organizations become controlled by apostate men - men who do not have God inside them - God leaves, because there is no longer any place for Him to rest (which includes these men, and the organizations they control).

 

[farley]

I'm sure that there must be more than one Historical record of "the Church", if you mean the Catholic church.

I see the "Historical record" as the reason FOR the Reformation.

Take a peek at "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" sometime.

BTW...I don't remember the author but large libraries should have a title called something to the effect of 'Sex Lives of Famous People'. More than one pope was listed, and it was pretty sick stuff even by todays standards. So, I'm thinking that 'history' can be found in multiple categories, huh?

In Christ,

farley

 

[thessalonian]

I'm sure that there must be more than one Historical record of "the Church", if you mean the Catholic church.

I see the "Historical record" as the reason FOR the Reformation.

Take a peek at "Foxes' Book of Martyrs" sometime.

BTW...I don't remember the author but large libraries should have a title called something to the effect of 'Sex Lives of Famous People'. More than one pope was listed, and it was pretty sick stuff even by todays standards. So, I'm thinking that 'history' can be found in multiple categories, huh?

In Christ,

farley

Farely,

I do wonder why Protestants haven't included Foxe's BofM in the canon of scripture yet. I happen to have a copy. Yes, there were some bad happenings and unwarranted persecution. Does this prove anything? Well only if you can find a religion where there weren't bad happenings and unwarranted persecution. I don't know of any myself. Eventually the corrupt nature of man shows through. Even men who claim to be and sometimes are very Christian, sin. It's sad, scandalous, and all. But it does not prove the teachings of a particular Church wrong. If scandal were to have proven anything the Jewish religion would have been proven wrong by it. Their leaders sacrificed children to pagan God's. Their King had his friend killed for his wife. Christianity, if proven wrong by sin would have died before the resurrection when Judas betrayed his master and the other Apostles all abandoned the Christ. Paul himself said "the good that I would do, I do not, while the EVIL that I would not do I do". Perhaps we should reject Christianity over Paul's evil deeds whatever they were. No, God works through sinners.

Further there used to be more passion about truth to the point that state laws, Protestant and Catholic were violated when heresy was preached. Heck, men were hung for stealing a horse. Surely stealing a mans soul (which is what they believed heresy did) was worth a litle more than a good talking to. Take a look in to the Geneva Inquisition sometime. It wasn't Catholic and a rather famous "reformer" approved of the lighting of one match on a woopile containing a man named Servetus. Nuns and priests were murdered by these "reformers". Am I proving anything with this? No, other than that we know men are sinners. I would not use it as an us vs. them arguement though I see Protestants use such red herrings all the time. Foxe's book of Martyrs proves nothing and is an excuse for men to justify the division upon division that is the fruit of the reformation. 99% of all denominations are rooted in this historical trajedy. Division is not of God.

Just my 2 cents


God bless

 

[Lewis]

Fox's Book of Martyrs
http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/home.html

I had it on on a computer CD at one time, but anyway D46 was telling me something about the book I can't remember what it was, but it was not good.
I have to ask him again.

 

[Lewis]

D46 what was it you were telling about Fox's book, over at our computer tech forum ?

 

[Lewis]

D46 over at out computer tech forum, I think you were telling me something about the accuracy of the deaths of the apostles in Fox's book. I forgot what you said

 

[Klee shay]

Why is the Historical record of "the Church" ignored by the Protestant Reformation?

Not being of any particular denomination myself, I was wondering why you feel the Protestant Reformation ignores "the Church" in it's historical record?

 

[Orthodox Christian]

D46 over at out computer tech forum, I think you were telling me something about the accuracy of the deaths of the apostles in Fox's book. I forgot what you said

Foxe lifted his accounts of the deaths of the apostles directly from Eusebius' church history, which was written in the early 4th century.

Please, I beg of you, let's roll up our sleeves and speak of history. Protestants do not want to go there with me, I assure you.

PDoug made the observation that the history of the Jews was ignored by Jesus. So much for the Torah and prophets then, eh PDoug? What specious nonsense.
Jesus 'avoided' the Jewish institution by going into the heart of it and preaching repentance, right?

Good Lord, the things people present as testimony.

Orthodoxy asks a great question, heretofore not properly answered. Why ignore the record of the Church? I mean, Protestant call upon the historical findings and faith of the Church, in a truncated and twisted sense. The bible came about in history and in the Historic Church. Likewise, the doctrine of the Trinity, orthodox christology and soteriology, and much, much more.

To consider the historical church and its teachings throughout the centuries would require Protestants to abandon many of their teachings and embrace the ancient Church. This I dioscovered by accident, when I in my foolish Protestant pride set out to examine the history and teachings of the Fathers that contradicted my OSAS Charismatic Evangelical preaching.
Their testimony was greater than mine, and is greater than this broken, schismated cacophony of voices, the Babel of religious persuasions claiming to all follow the bible.

PDoug spoke a truth in his ignorance in this regard: there were Jews that were similar to the Protestants of our times. They were a group of men who were deeply troubled by the indifference of their age, and fought and died to bring Israel back to its purity. After Antiochus Epihanes was defeated in 166 BCE, they assumed religious authority, and came to be known as the sect of the Pharisees. They then went and made their traditions binding over men who already had the Law and the priesthood.
As they say, history repeats itself.

In times of trouble, redig the wells
Iakovos

 

[farley]

When a question is asked of a group, the replies one receives usually are representative of the group. Why should this question and this group prove to be any different. Not all questions are pleasing to some, likewise the replies.

There are many far more knowledgeable here than I. One of the reasons that I visit this site is to learn.

When a comment strikes a chord within me, sometimes I am moved to respond. I am thinking that all responder's see their replies as relevant and worth sharing, but I am also thinking that this is rarely the actual result.

Anyway, let's just look at one small issue for right now.

I'm thinking that Martin Luther is seen as starting the Reformation. What little I know about Luther's issues, and it is very little, with the church was primarily over the church selling exemptions to church law, to any who offered a sufficent sum.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, here.

If this was the case, and there is no scripture endorsing such acts. Then what could be the justification for asking the question which opens this thread?

BUT...Hark!...I'm starting to think that this is not the 'history' being questioned in the opening post of this thread!!! Let's not try and be selective of the church history we discuss, let's open it all for discussion, OK!

If this was truly the case, then the church was teaching apostasy. If this was truly the case, then every church leader from the pope down was responsible for implementing and endorsing SIN.

When one can't trust the leadership of a church to teach the Truth, then, in my humble opinion, one should be able to pick up the scriptures and find the Truth for oneself. And, using the Truth as one's guide, implement the True church, where ever one happens to live on this planet, north, east, south, and west.

Thank God for allowing the printing press to come into existence, and for allowing me to be born and live in a country that attempts to educate it's masses.

In Christ,

farley

 

[PDoug]

PDoug made the observation that the history of the Jews was ignored by Jesus. So much for the Torah and prophets then, eh PDoug? What specious nonsense.
Jesus 'avoided' the Jewish institution by going into the heart of it and preaching repentance, right?

If by the 'history' of the Church and the 'history' of the Jews, you mean all the teachings, traditions, and authority of these institutions, then it is fair to say that many protestants 'ignored' the Catholic Church's 'history', the same way the prophets and Christ ignored the Jews' own 'history'. Did Christ acknowledge many scriptures and works found in the Old Testament, along with other scriptures inspired by God before Christ's time, but also denounced many Jewish religious practices, institutions, and leaders? Yes He did. So why is it unreasonable for protestants to do the same for the Catholic Church they judge (based on scripture) as being apostate? If Christ said in Matthew 7:15-20 that only someone from God bears good fruit, yet good fruit is not evident in the Catholic Church, why is it unreasonable for protestants to regard this scripture, and not place any stock in the institution and its people as a result?

PDoug spoke a truth in his ignorance in this regard: there were Jews that were similar to the Protestants of our times. They were a group of men who were deeply troubled by the indifference of their age, and fought and died to bring Israel back to its purity. After Antiochus Epihanes was defeated in 166 BCE, they assumed religious authority, and came to be known as the sect of the Pharisees. They then went and made their traditions binding over men who already had the Law and the priesthood.
As they say, history repeats itself.

The bottom line is this: with God it is all about having faith or not. Everything else is incidental. If any individual or group of individuals have real faith, and bear fruit because of it: they have authority from God. If any individual or group of individuals do not have real faith, and do not bear fruit because of it: they have no authority from God. That is the way things are. End of story.

What many people don't get, is that the law is a living document. It is not a static set of rules. When someone has faith, he lives according to the law in a unique way that suits God's purposes. That is why those who have faith still abide by the law, even though don't tithe, etc. That is also why Paul wrote the following:

Romans 9

30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith;
31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.
32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." 33As it is written:
"See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

The law is much more than what is set out in the Old Testament: the law is the sum of the behaviors people should exhibit, if they have have faith and live, as a consequence, according to the will of God.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

PDoug made the observation that the history of the Jews was ignored by Jesus. So much for the Torah and prophets then, eh PDoug? What specious nonsense.
Jesus 'avoided' the Jewish institution by going into the heart of it and preaching repentance, right?

If by the 'history' of the Church and the 'history' of the Jews, you mean all the teachings, traditions, and authority of these institutions, then it is fair to say that many protestants 'ignored' the Catholic Church's 'history', the same way the prophets and Christ ignored the Jews' own 'history'. Did Christ acknowledge many scriptures and works found in the Old Testament, along with other scriptures inspired by God before Christ's time, but also denounced many Jewish religious practices, institutions, and leaders? Yes He did. So why is it unreasonable for protestants to do the same for the Catholic Church they judge (based on scripture) as being apostate? If Christ said in Matthew 7:15-20 that only someone from God bears good fruit, yet good fruit is not evident in the Catholic Church, why is it unreasonable for protestants to regard this scripture, and not place any stock in the institution and its people as a result?

[quote="Orthodox Christian":67adc]PDoug spoke a truth in his ignorance in this regard: there were Jews that were similar to the Protestants of our times. They were a group of men who were deeply troubled by the indifference of their age, and fought and died to bring Israel back to its purity. After Antiochus Epihanes was defeated in 166 BCE, they assumed religious authority, and came to be known as the sect of the Pharisees. They then went and made their traditions binding over men who already had the Law and the priesthood.
As they say, history repeats itself.

The bottom line is this: with God it is all about having faith or not. Everything else is incidental. If any individual or group of individuals have real faith, and bear fruit because of it: they have authority from God. If any individual or group of individuals do not have real faith, and do not bear fruit because of it: they have no authority from God. That is the way things are. End of story.

What many people don't get, is that the law is a living document. It is not a static set of rules. When someone has faith, he lives according to the law in a unique way that suits God's purposes. That is why those who have faith still abide by the law, even though don't tithe, etc. That is also why Paul wrote the following:

Romans 9

30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith;
31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.
32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." 33As it is written:
"See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

The law is much more than what is set out in the Old Testament: the law the sum of the behaviors people should exhibit, if they have have faith and live, as a consequence, according to the will of God.[/quote:67adc]
But here is the clincher: How will people know if the people who make up 20 centuries of Christian history had 'real faith' unless they study the history, know the people, become versed in the conflicts and convergence, and so forth? Or, to put it another way, are people who ignore the history of the Church without investigating it allowing others to interpret for them? Why should anyone believe that the characters in Christian history are divergent from 'authentic, scriptural Christianity' unless they investigate for themselves?

So should Ignatius' testimony be dismissed because somebody thinks it resembles modern Orthodox ecclesiastical theology? Or should that fact in itself drive the Protestant to investigate why such an early figure stumped so heavily for the episcopacy that Protestants eschew?

If anything, your appeal to authentic Christianity places a burden of responsibility upon people to see how faith has been lived out over the centuries. A blanket dismissal of history as 'the story of that apostate church' is an approach steeped in contradictions:
The Protestants say: "I reject your authority because of my experience"
yet they decline to investigate the experiences and divergent theology of those who went before them...

and then they label Catholicism and/or Orthodoxy as 'the traditions of men.'
:roll:

Much of the Reformation reminds me of that story in the OT (Judges 17-18) about the Levite who sells his services as a father and a priest to a rich man for 'ten shekels and a shirt.' Not wanting to worship as his peers did, the rich man purchases a new religious form tailor-made to his desires. When a bigger crowd came by for him to be priest to, he gladly followed them and their desires.

This is not wisdom, nor was the Reformation wise. Revive, renew, absolutely. Reform? This is not what Israel did in time of crisis. No, they brought out the book of the Law. In Genesis 26, Isaac redug the wells of his father, and named them as they had been named.

Isaac knew his history, as should every son of Abraham.

Rdr. Iakovos

 

[Orthodox Christian]

[quote="Orthodox Christian":6c85b]PDoug made the observation that the history of the Jews was ignored by Jesus. So much for the Torah and prophets then, eh PDoug? What specious nonsense.
Jesus 'avoided' the Jewish institution by going into the heart of it and preaching repentance, right?

If by the 'history' of the Church and the 'history' of the Jews, you mean all the teachings, traditions, and authority of these institutions, then it is fair to say that many protestants 'ignored' the Catholic Church's 'history', the same way the prophets and Christ ignored the Jews' own 'history'. Did Christ acknowledge many scriptures and works found in the Old Testament, along with other scriptures inspired by God before Christ's time, but also denounced many Jewish religious practices, institutions, and leaders? Yes He did. So why is it unreasonable for protestants to do the same for the Catholic Church they judge (based on scripture) as being apostate? If Christ said in Matthew 7:15-20 that only someone from God bears good fruit, yet good fruit is not evident in the Catholic Church, why is it unreasonable for protestants to regard this scripture, and not place any stock in the institution and its people as a result?

[quote="Orthodox Christian":6c85b]PDoug spoke a truth in his ignorance in this regard: there were Jews that were similar to the Protestants of our times. They were a group of men who were deeply troubled by the indifference of their age, and fought and died to bring Israel back to its purity. After Antiochus Epihanes was defeated in 166 BCE, they assumed religious authority, and came to be known as the sect of the Pharisees. They then went and made their traditions binding over men who already had the Law and the priesthood.
As they say, history repeats itself.

The bottom line is this: with God it is all about having faith or not. Everything else is incidental. If any individual or group of individuals have real faith, and bear fruit because of it: they have authority from God. If any individual or group of individuals do not have real faith, and do not bear fruit because of it: they have no authority from God. That is the way things are. End of story.

What many people don't get, is that the law is a living document. It is not a static set of rules. When someone has faith, he lives according to the law in a unique way that suits God's purposes. That is why those who have faith still abide by the law, even though don't tithe, etc. That is also why Paul wrote the following:

Romans 9

30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith;
31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.
32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." 33As it is written:
"See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

The law is much more than what is set out in the Old Testament: the law the sum of the behaviors people should exhibit, if they have have faith and live, as a consequence, according to the will of God.[/quote:6c85b]
But here is the clincher: How will people know if the people who make up 20 centuries of Christian history had 'real faith' unless they study the history, know the people, become versed in the conflicts and convergence, and so forth? Or, to put it another way, are people who ignore the history of the Church without investigating it allowing others to interpret for them? Why should anyone believe that the characters in Christian history are divergent from 'authentic, scriptural Christianity' unless they investigate for themselves?

So should Ignatius' testimony be dismissed because somebody thinks it resembles modern Orthodox ecclesiastical theology? Or should that fact in itself drive the Protestant to investigate why such an early figure stumped so heavily for the episcopacy that Protestants eschew?

If anything, your appeal to authentic Christianity places a burden of responsibility upon people to see how faith has been lived out over the centuries. A blanket dismissal of history as 'the story of that apostate church' is an approach steeped in contradictions:
The Protestants say: "I reject your authority because of my experience"
yet they decline to investigate the experiences and divergent theology of those who went before them...

and then they label Catholicism and/or Orthodoxy as 'the traditions of men.'
:roll:

Much of the Reformation reminds me of that story in the OT (Judges 17-18) about the Levite who sells his services as a father and a priest to a rich man for 'ten shekels and a shirt.' Not wanting to worship as his peers did, the rich man purchases a new religious form tailor-made to his desires. When a bigger crowd came by for him to be priest to, he gladly followed them and their desires.

This is not wisdom, nor was the Reformation wise. Revive, renew, absolutely. Reform? This is not what Israel did in time of crisis. No, they brought out the book of the Law. In Genesis 26, Isaac redug the wells of his father, and named them as they had been named.

Thus says the Lord God of Israel and of all the Universe

Do not remove the ancient landmark Which your fathers have set.
Proverbs 22:28

Isaac knew his history, as should every son of Abraham.

Rdr. Iakovos[/quote:6c85b]

 

[PDoug]

But here is the clincher: How will people know if the people who make up 20 centuries of Christian history had 'real faith' unless they study the history, know the people, become versed in the conflicts and convergence, and so forth? Or, to put it another way, are people who ignore the history of the Church without investigating it allowing others to interpret for them? Why should anyone believe that the characters in Christian history are divergent from 'authentic, scriptural Christianity' unless they investigate for themselves?

Please note the following scriptures:

Galatians 5

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

1 Corinthians 13

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

The scriptures above list the fundamental qualities (or fruit) that are found in someone who has faith. Please note that love is a behavior (not an emotion) that is produced by the Holy Spirit being present in a person, and that the Holy Spirit enters a person, by the person having faith (Galatians 3:14). Another important point which is alluded to in Matthew 7:15 is the fact that the above qualities are centered at the core of a person - not on the person's surface. This means that it is possible for someone belonging to God to seem not very nice on the surface, but at the person's inside or core, he or she is nice. This scenario actually occurs when someone is being tested, where God allows spirits in alliance with the devil, to sobatage that person's behavior, so that the person looks superficially bad to people. Please also note that it is the above basic qualities (kindness, lack of boastfulness, affinity for the truth, perseverence, etc.) and not high level actions highly regarded by society (e.g. the person appearing to act responsibly) found in the person's major actions, which indicate that the person belongs, or does not belong to God.

Therefore for someone to judge well whether the Catholic Church (or anyone or any other institution) belongs to God, he needs to see if he can identify the qualities listed in the scriptures above, using the notes found in the previous paragraph. I personally have never seen those qualities in a priest or minister that I've met - or in the Catholic Church at large - therefore I'm comfortable in concluding that the Catholic Church (as is also true with the vast majority of Protestant Churches) is not inhabited by God, and hence has no authority from God.