RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Church



Message

meep meep -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/21/2005 3:25:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: walterquez

quote:

ORIGINAL: alasoosie

Does the Orthodox church practice the same things as the early church? Well, depends how early you want to go! They don't come anywhere close to the practices outlined in the NT and neither does the Catholic church. The practices of the Orthodox and Catholic church are totally foreign to the New Testament. That is how I know that their idea of apostolic succession is totally not true.
Would you care to name the differences if any?


Well,

If you are correct and it is not true, then you must have studied and read exactly how the early church functioned and believed, and how the Apostolic churches have deviated.

And if the Apostolic churches are not apostolic, if the Holy Spirit and God's promise was not poured out on the Apostles and on those they selected and prayed over (see Acts - very first example of Apostolic succession), and the deposit of faith is not to be found in the church - then it was a big lie for 1500 years.

For 1500 years, the church, the witness and bride of Christ did not exist.

And if the Apostolic churches are not, and do not hold the deposit of faith - how much less our our bretheren who branch out and form their own churches whenever they disagree one with another? How much less then when their leaders are either self appointed or "elected".

Some abbreviated questions.

Meep



walterquez -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/21/2005 4:00:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meep meep

And if the Apostolic churches are not, and do not hold the deposit of faith - how much less our our bretheren who branch out and form their own churches whenever they disagree one with another? How much less then when their leaders are either self appointed or "elected".
Excellent point.



i_believe -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/21/2005 4:49:43 PM)

quote:

what is "documented proof" ?
What does that mean?


The documentation used by the "church" to prove they are in an unbroken line that goes back to the Apostles.



walterquez -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/21/2005 5:00:59 PM)

i_believe, but the NT bible also came from the Church. How do you know that too was probably made up?



i_believe -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/21/2005 5:06:19 PM)

quote:

Further, the Church has never claimed to be a "mediator"


Sure it has.

quote:

What you espouse in your postings is completely in opposition to what the Apostles and the early church taught - and I don't mean the RCC.


What position? That Jesus Christ is the only mediator?

quote:

Let me get this straight based on what I said and what you responded. Clement, Polycarp, even Stephen, and innumerable others who were martyred for the cause of Christ -shed their blood for no reason and it was of no consequence because they were lying and serving a false God?


I claimed nothing. I just pointed out that martyrdom does not guarantee truth as you had suggested it did.

quote:

God does indeed look to the inside of a man, but the Church is to be a shining light set on a hill for God's glory.


The true church (body of Christ) has been a shining light it just has not been under any man's banner such as (RCC, EOC, etc). You (and many others) keep trying fruitlessly and without any biblical support to equate these groups with the true church.

quote:

Even the most cursory and superficial review of Church history debunks the fame myth roundly and completely.


Whose history do you read? The organized political body that has been referred to as the "church" has killed many for the same reasons that they have been killed themselves.



i_believe -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/21/2005 5:13:33 PM)

quote:

And if the Apostolic churches are not apostolic, if the Holy Spirit and God's promise was not poured out on the Apostles and on those they selected and prayed over (see Acts - very first example of Apostolic succession), and the deposit of faith is not to be found in the church - then it was a big lie for 1500 years.


It is in the church universal but not under man's banners.



i_believe -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/21/2005 5:16:56 PM)

quote:

i_believe, but the NT bible also came from the Church. How do you know that too was probably made up?


Which of those who claim to be "the church" and have the same claim to Apostolic Succession is correct in the areas where they disagree? Remember, they all claim that their doctrine was passed down from the Apostles.



rcjames -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/21/2005 5:24:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meep meep


..BTW the Roman see was not the only see in existence at the time...

Meep


Well which one of the sees had the Apsotolic sucession flow thruogh him or was it split at that time.

Thanks
RC



rcjames -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/21/2005 5:40:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: walterquez

i_believe, but the NT bible also came from the Church. How do you know that too was probably made up?


Nay nay Mr. walterquez, the New Testament came from the first Century and was completed by 100 AD.

The New Testament was the fulfillment of the instructions of Christ;

(Mat 28:18) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

(Mat 28:19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

(Mat 28:20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

And they did and then wrote it down under the guidance of the Holy Spirit so it could never be changed, taken away from or added to.

The "Church" 300 years later only endorsed what had been done previously.

Any phoney writings were done later and call equal to Scripture, but will never be.

Thanks
RC



walterquez -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/21/2005 7:17:18 PM)

Ok, it is quite obvious that only two have been mentioned having any kind of link (at least historically) to the original NT Church. I think the claim sounds reasonable to which the Apostle Paul said, let us reason together.

From a historical point of view, these two main Churches do have roots to the original Church. That can’t be argued. If there is another Church, it has not been brought up. I heard rumors about the Anglican Church, but other than that, Protestant Churches do not have any historical roots to the NT Church.

I would like to borrow an analogy from meep. GM makes, well, GM cars like Chevys, Olds, Buics, Saabs, among other things. And they have been building these for a long long time. Now despite whether they have changed over the years or not, they are still the real GM. No matter what they make, whether old or new, GM sets the standard for what GM is or is not. What GM is or does is GM, and what most other think about GM is, is not. No reasonable person would dispute this.

In other words, what the Orthodox Church is, IS Christianity, and what most other think what Christianity is, is not. Well, at least from their perspective. Or what I gathered from unworthyseraphim.

I believe there is some merit to this. An organization that has roots to the original one sets the standards for what Christianity is. Everyone else outside of them have no right to say what Christianity is.



meep meep -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/21/2005 7:27:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: i_believe

quote:

what is "documented proof" ?
What does that mean?


The documentation used by the "church" to prove they are in an unbroken line that goes back to the Apostles.


Which is what? That tells me nothing. The pagans and unbelievers have better arguments, the secularists and skeptics have more compelling evidence.


What are your sources?
How do you reach this conclusion?

[The Holy Spirit? I have the Spirit and listen to him too;
Scripture? Me too]

Have you personally read and examined the "documentation"?

I would like to know what "documentation" you use to prove the opposite.

Faith does not preclude reason - but that is another thread[:)]


Meep



rcjames -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/21/2005 7:39:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: walterquez

Ok, it is quite obvious that only two have been mentioned having any kind of link (at least historically) to the original NT Church. I think the claim sounds reasonable to which the Apostle Paul said, let us reason together.

From a historical point of view, these two main Churches do have roots to the original Church. That can’t be argued. If there is another Church, it has not been brought up. I heard rumors about the Anglican Church, but other than that, Protestant Churches do not have any historical roots to the NT Church.

I would like to borrow an analogy from meep. GM makes, well, GM cars like Chevys, Olds, Buics, Saabs, among other things. And they have been building these for a long long time. Now despite whether they have changed over the years or not, they are still the real GM. No matter what they make, whether old or new, GM sets the standard for what GM is or is not. What GM is or does is GM, and what most other think about GM is, is not. No reasonable person would dispute this.

In other words, what the Orthodox Church is, IS Christianity, and what most other think what Christianity is, is not. Well, at least from their perspective. Or what I gathered from unworthyseraphim.

I believe there is some merit to this. An organization that has roots to the original one sets the standards for what Christianity is. Everyone else outside of them have no right to say what Christianity is.


Where do you think that the Protestant Churchs came from?

Are you really saying that unless one is EOC or RCC that they cannot say what a Christian is? or be one?

Waiting on baited breath for your reply.

Thanks
RC



meep meep -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/21/2005 8:07:28 PM)

Dear i -

quote:

ORIGINAL: i_believe

quote:

Further, the Church has never claimed to be a "mediator"


Sure it has.

quote:

What you espouse in your postings is completely in opposition to what the Apostles and the early church taught - and I don't mean the RCC.


What position? That Jesus Christ is the only mediator?


That the Church is one, that the Church holds the TRADITON, i.e. the teaching of the Apostles, that it is from Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and that it is to be passed on successively.

And that is as important now as it was in the early church, because without it you have what we see in the 20-30 THOUSAND denominations which have sprung up since the 16th century each claiming to have the truth, each emanating from a man made teaching.

I honestly DO understand why it is so important to debunk any church which teaches with the authority of Christ.

quote:

Let me get this straight based on what I said and what you responded. Clement, Polycarp, even Stephen, and innumerable others who were martyred for the cause of Christ -shed their blood for no reason and it was of no consequence because they were lying and serving a false God?


I claimed nothing. I just pointed out that martyrdom does not guarantee truth as you had suggested it did.

Martyrdom does not guarantee truth, but that wasn't the point I made. I responded to your statement that the goal was fame, wealth, glory, power, etc. My response was that there were many avenues they could have taken to those ends without ending up tortured, maimed, poor, hunted and persecuted, and then finally slain in a most ignoble manner.

Why do you think Paul himself recites his OWN litany of hardships in Corinthians 1 & 2 - for glory and fame? Or was there something else?

Why did Jesus himself prophesy what sort of life and death Peter (and the other Apostles) would endure - was it for an untruth, fame, glory?

But Okay.

We have no guarantee, then, that the NT is truly the word of God, because we have no guarantee that those same canards who lied about the Apostolic truth and who circulated the epistles and Gospels can guarantee that what they state is truly from God.

We have no guarantee that what Paul wrote was inspired from God, or that somebody didn't forge it .

It is insufficient to say the NT itself is self authenticating - (what did Jesus say about bearing witness to himself?) since EVERY religious book under the sun states it is holy, the word of God, and more.

Surely, then, there is something else....

quote:

God does indeed look to the inside of a man, but the Church is to be a shining light set on a hill for God's glory.


The true church (body of Christ) has been a shining light it just has not been under any man's banner such as (RCC, EOC, etc). You (and many others) keep trying fruitlessly and without any biblical support to equate these groups with the true church.

The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has always proclaimed to have as it's head Jesus Christ and no other. You say they are not the Church, history and God show differently. What was it Annanias said in Acts about this movement being from God?

Please identify this "true and shining light".



quote:

Even the most cursory and superficial review of Church history debunks the fame myth roundly and completely.


Whose history do you read? The organized political body that has been referred to as the "church" has killed many for the same reasons that they have been killed themselves.


Politics is life. It is found in every relationship under the sun. So it is a vapid accusation you make. It does nothing to advance a discussion.

As to whose history I read - I asked first. [:D] However I will give you a list if I have time just as a basis of this conversation.

Meep




i_believe -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/21/2005 8:43:51 PM)

quote:

Which is what? That tells me nothing. The pagans and unbelievers have better arguments, the secularists and skeptics have more compelling evidence.


Meep[&:]

So you want me to gather and disprove the evidence that you would use to prove your assertion. Surely, even pagans and unbelievers, secularists and skeptics can do better than that.[;)]

Some will not hear or see and prefer to argue with themselves.



i_believe -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/21/2005 8:52:46 PM)

quote:

We have no guarantee, then, that the NT is truly the word of God, because we have no guarantee that those same canards who lied about the Apostolic truth and who circulated the epistles and Gospels can guarantee that what they state is truly from God.


Again, you assume that they are one and the same. They were, the RCC & EOC, etc are not.

It is man's arrogance that claims that the "church" did anything. God preserved and passed His Word just as He promised. It was never dependent upon men.



i_believe -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/21/2005 9:08:08 PM)

quote:

From a historical point of view, these two main Churches do have roots to the original Church. That can’t be argued. If there is another Church, it has not been brought up. I heard rumors about the Anglican Church, but other than that, Protestant Churches do not have any historical roots to the NT Church.


There are several that claim this. Do a search on the net and you should find enough to help get you started.



nowimfound -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/21/2005 9:21:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: walterquez

Ok, it is quite obvious that only two have been mentioned having any kind of link (at least historically) to the original NT Church. I think the claim sounds reasonable to which the Apostle Paul said, let us reason together.

From a historical point of view, these two main Churches do have roots to the original Church. That can’t be argued. If there is another Church, it has not been brought up. I heard rumors about the Anglican Church, but other than that, Protestant Churches do not have any historical roots to the NT Church.

I would like to borrow an analogy from meep. GM makes, well, GM cars like Chevys, Olds, Buics, Saabs, among other things. And they have been building these for a long long time. Now despite whether they have changed over the years or not, they are still the real GM. No matter what they make, whether old or new, GM sets the standard for what GM is or is not. What GM is or does is GM, and what most other think about GM is, is not. No reasonable person would dispute this.

In other words, what the Orthodox Church is, IS Christianity, and what most other think what Christianity is, is not. Well, at least from their perspective. Or what I gathered from unworthyseraphim.

I believe there is some merit to this. An organization that has roots to the original one sets the standards for what Christianity is. Everyone else outside of them have no right to say what Christianity is.

Analogies are wonderful things.

One way to determine paternity is to examine DNA. For many years, there was a controversy about Thomas Jeferson having had a slave mistress named Sally Hemmings through whom he supposedly fathered as many as nine children. Sally Hemmings was known to have been a half sister to Thomas Jefferson's wife Martha and was given to the Jeffersons as a wedding present. Because of this, modern DNA comparisons between descendants of the marriage of Thomas and Martha and descendants of Sally Hemmings could not conclusively prove that Sally's children were fathered by Thomas Jefferson. As as a half sister of Martha Jefferson some matching of DNA by Sally's dependents was to be expected. Would the lineage claims of the descendants of Sally Hemmings remain a mystery? The 'Y' chromosome of a son of a son of a son of a son .....of a son of Sally Hemmings would be from the father of that child. Such a descendant of Sally Hemmings was identified and DNA tests using 'Y' Chromosomes proved that at least that son of Sally Hemmings was fathered by Thomas Jefferson.

I make this analogy to raise a question and to make a point. What is the DNA equivalent in the church that provides proof positive of a lineage of believers from faith to faith extending to the faith of the Apostles? What modern artifact(s) of the Apostles have or has been passed from generation to generation that we can examine today and test to validate Apostolic origin?

The only thing that I believe there is universal agreement about is that the N.T. books of the Bible are almost all accepted as being of Apostolic origin. Some books and portions of some books are of questionable origin, but if we stick to those that are universally agreed to be of Apostolic origin, then are not these portions of Scripture the only surviving DNA of Christ's church? Those modern churches whose doctrine is clearly consistent with these portions of N.T. Scripture have the strongest claim as being the modern spiritual offspring of the Apostles. A succession of ordination does not prove spiritual parentage anymore than a succession of legal parentage proves biological parentage. An unfaithful individual in such a succession can introduce spiritual DNA which taints and marks all subsequent generations. This is the fundamental danger in relying upon ordination to identify the spiritual parentage of a church. Did Christ intend for his church to survive until his return on such a weak basis? He certainly didn't seem to do so for all of the O.T. years.

Grace and Peace,

NIF



i_believe -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/21/2005 9:42:43 PM)

quote:

As to whose history I read - I asked first. However I will give you a list if I have time just as a basis of this conversation.


I made it pretty clear that the documentation I was speaking was "self documented"...

Hint... they are their own source.[;)]

But here are a few that I have read:
www.catholic.com, www.newadvent.org, etc.



meep meep -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/21/2005 10:21:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: i_believe

quote:

Which is what? That tells me nothing. The pagans and unbelievers have better arguments, the secularists and skeptics have more compelling evidence.


Meep[&:]

So you want me to gather and disprove the evidence that you would use to prove your assertion. Surely, even pagans and unbelievers, secularists and skeptics can do better than that.[;)]

Some will not hear or see and prefer to argue with themselves.


No,... you have made a number of statements with some very clear implications.

Don't gather or disprove evidence I would use to prove my assertion - just give me your sources.

I will be happy to give you sources from which I cull my conclusions.

However, if you make statements which question the authenticity of a document you should have verifiable sources.

Perhaps I am deaf and blind, but let's stick to the issues and the discussion.

Blessings to you,

Meep



walterquez -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/21/2005 10:34:09 PM)

nowimfound, I like your DNA analogy.

Only those who are of the same lineage as the Jones will have the same DNA.

You can have another group of people that has learned to eat, drink and live just like the Jones, but no matter how hard they try, they are still not the Jones.

It is the same with the Church. There is only One Church. And only those who descend from her have the Church's DNA. Any other group who did not descend from her, no matter how holy they act, no matter how hard they try, they don't have the DNA.

Many in the OT could have made the same arguements against the Levites. They could say, the Levites are no longer following the old doctrines. They have changed and added other stuffs. Then you have other tribes ordaining their own priests to sacrifice for them. It doesn't matter how well or better they are than the true Levites, they don't have the DNA. They are fakes. Not the real thing.

And besides, what gave these people the right to start their own denomination apart from the body? Under whose authority? Where is the scripture that says they can do this? They are apostates.



Ezra -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/21/2005 10:40:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: walterquez
An organization that has roots to the original one sets the standards for what Christianity is. Everyone else outside of them have no right to say what Christianity is.


Walter:

Au contraire. It is the New Testament itself -- the revealed Word of God -- that must set the standard for all churches.

And what the NT reveals is that even while the apostles were alive and ministering to the churches in the Roman Empire, heretics and apostates had already crept into the churches. Read the epistles and the Apocalypse for details.

When we go through the messages to the seven churches in Asia Minor, we find that there was a serious mixture of truth and error in each and every one of those churches!

IOW, the corruption of local churches had already begun between 33 and 100 A.D., and continued into the 4th century, when the Arian heresy became a major isue. The Gnostics were primarily involved in the corruption of churches, and there was a variety of erroneous doctrine and practice, as well as the corruption of the Scriptures themselves by men such as Marcion etc.

Therefore there is not a single church that would have been a model of perfect obedience to Christ and His Word, and which could today claim to be "the standard" local church. The Greek Orthodox churches introduced many unscriptural doctrines and practices, while the church of Rome also became seriously corrupted. By the time of the Reformation, it was truly a time to reform both Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Roman) Christianity. The Reformation, however, did not go far enough in restoring the NT pattern (e.g. believer's baptism).

While all this was going on, there were also many individual assemblies of Christians throughout the Roman Empire that were making a serious effort to follow the NT pattern of doctrine and practice, and keeping themselves outside the pale of Rome or Constantinople. While they are rarely mentioned in these discussions, we would be quite remiss in ignoring their existence. The Holy Spirit was at work throughout the world, as He continues to be outside the RCC and the EOC.

It is not the claims which churches make, but what is actually taught and practised within them that matters. The church of Jerusalem immediately after Pentecost should be the model and the goal for every church. And it is well described in the book of Acts. If you want a high and powerful standard, go back to Scripture and you'll find it.



walterquez -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/21/2005 10:44:32 PM)

i_believe listed a couple links of the Catholic Church. Maybe he is Catholic.[sm=icon_smile_yikes.gif]
www.catholic.com
www.newadvent.org

Here is one of the Orthodox here in America.
http://www.goarch.org/

Are there any other links of any other organization that proves they are the True Church? Or more links to help us in this discussion? I welcome you to post them as long as it doesn't violate the TOS. I think it is better to get the information from the source rather than get second hand information.

I am not going to list the LDS or JW. I think we know they are not.



meep meep -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/21/2005 10:47:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: i_believe

quote:

As to whose history I read - I asked first. However I will give you a list if I have time just as a basis of this conversation.


I made it pretty clear that the documentation I was speaking was "self documented"...

Hint... they are their own source.[;)]

But here are a few that I have read:
www.catholic.com, www.newadvent.org, etc.


Dear i-

That is not documentation.

Those are websites. They may or may not have their own slant or opinions, and while they may be a good start that is not documentation.

Let's take Clement's letter. Now what I infer from your comments is that it is not to be believed.

So what documentation can you show me that proves - or disproves it's authenticity?

Well, we can go to archeological sources, we can look at the document itself - if it exists in the original;
we can look to the style of writing, the material, and the references to other contemporaneous writings.
We can look to others who were around at the time and what they were saying, we can see if there are any stylistic or historical anachronisms, we can see if there are other documents which mention the letter either pro - or con;
we can look at the letter in the original language - and not as something someone else tells us; we can look to what oral history has been passed down in that period, we can look at references made to the letter later on in history, and we can look at who the people are who are all a part of this process, and on and on.

After looking at intrinsic and extrinsic materia, those who take the time and energy to study this letter in depth - scholars whose material and integrity is judged by their peers - reach a consensus.

...and if that information, investigation, and history is consistent with other aspects of teaching and what has been handed down, then you exercise your faith...

This, btw, is accepted historical method and has been used to "prove" the historical Jesus.

This simplistic explanation is not meant to be condescending, but if one is to look at all (and they are only some) of the factors I mentioned, it is impossible to say it is self documented, because of the extrinsic sources being used - many of them secular.

My personal preference is to ALWAYS examine primary documents in the original and to ALWAYS study and examine those which disagree with my filters first and foremost.

In Christ,
Meep



meep meep -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/21/2005 10:50:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ezra

quote:

ORIGINAL: walterquez
An organization that has roots to the original one sets the standards for what Christianity is. Everyone else outside of them have no right to say what Christianity is.


Walter:

Au contraire. It is the New Testament itself -- the revealed Word of God -- that must set the standard for all churches.

And what the NT reveals is that even while the apostles were alive and ministering to the churches in the Roman Empire, heretics and apostates had already crept into the churches. Read the epistles and the Apocalypse for details.

When we go through the messages to the seven churches in Asia Minor, we find that there was a serious mixture of truth and error in each and every one of those churches!

IOW, the corruption of local churches had already begun between 33 and 100 A.D., and continued into the 4th century, when the Arian heresy became a major isue. The Gnostics were primarily involved in the corruption of churches, and there was a variety of erroneous doctrine and practice, as well as the corruption of the Scriptures themselves by men such as Marcion etc.

Therefore there is not a single church that would have been a model of perfect obedience to Christ and His Word, and which could today claim to be "the standard" local church. The Greek Orthodox churches introduced many unscriptural doctrines and practices, while the church of Rome also became seriously corrupted. By the time of the Reformation, it was truly a time to reform both Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Roman) Christianity. The Reformation, however, did not go far enough in restoring the NT pattern (e.g. believer's baptism).

While all this was going on, there were also many individual assemblies of Christians throughout the Roman Empire that were making a serious effort to follow the NT pattern of doctrine and practice, and keeping themselves outside the pale of Rome or Constantinople. While they are rarely mentioned in these discussions, we would be quite remiss in ignoring their existence. The Holy Spirit was at work throughout the world, as He continues to be outside the RCC and the EOC.

It is not the claims which churches make, but what is actually taught and practised within them that matters. The church of Jerusalem immediately after Pentecost should be the model and the goal for every church. And it is well described in the book of Acts. If you want a high and powerful standard, go back to Scripture and you'll find it.



ummmm....WHERE is the Jerusalem Church today?

More later,

Meep



walterquez -> RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession (9/21/2005 10:52:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ezra

The Greek Orthodox churches introduced many unscriptural doctrines and practices, while the church of Rome also became seriously corrupted.
And what are those? Scripture please.
quote:

By the time of the Reformation, it was truly a time to reform both Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Roman) Christianity.
Under whose authority? Instead of a reformation, what we got was more splits and more splits and more splits which is still going on today.
quote:

While all this was going on, there were also many individual assemblies of Christians throughout the Roman Empire that were making a serious effort to follow the NT pattern of doctrine and practice, and keeping themselves outside the pale of Rome or Constantinople. While they are rarely mentioned in these discussions, we would be quite remiss in ignoring their existence. The Holy Spirit was at work throughout the world, as He continues to be outside the RCC and the EOC.
We hardly know what these small groups fully believed or practiced, so you have no idea if they truly followed the NT Church. For all we know, they could have been heretics.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI