Protestantism

» pink101 - Catholicism

In response to Catholicism posted by BrianTubbs:

.
I've heard that story about a special part of the church that was separate from Catholicism from the early days for as long as I can remember. And, they were supposed to be Baptists, right?
.
Right.
.
Historically all of those various segments of religiosity were brought under the aegis of the Catholic Church--fell away--and were brought back. The Catholic Church was downright corrupted by its leadership and that had more to do with the creation of denominations than anything else.
.
Even the Church of England was a corrupt break-a-way from the corrupt R.C. Church. Corruption seems to be the main stream of just about every form of leadership civilization has known. I think of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark who says, "Things rank and gross in nature possess it merely that it should come to this..."
.
Oh, well....

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Dissidents

In response to Catholicism posted by pink101:

I've heard that story about a special part of the church that was separate from Catholicism from the early days for as long as I can remember. And, they were supposed to be Baptists, right?

You are referring to the Baptist Landmarkism movement, the Trail of Blood adherents, and all that crowd. I've seen those "historical" narratives, and I reject them. So, you're wrong to associate me with that.

What I'm saying is what just about any church historian will tell you (other than perhaps some Catholic historians ), and that is this...

There have always been regional and doctrinal differences within the Christian community - going back to the time of the apostles. Anyone who reads the book of Acts can see this!

Historically all of those various segments of religiosity were brought under the aegis of the Catholic Church--fell away--and were brought back. The Catholic Church was downright corrupted by its leadership and that had more to do with the creation of denominations than anything else.

That's an over-simplification of church history. It's more complex than that. For one thing, there wasn't an institutional, organized "Catholic Church" (capital c) until AFTER Constantine. So, from the first century through the fourth century, you had various congregations spreading throughout the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and parts of Asia - these congregations were united around some core beliefs (essentially the "fundamentals"), but they differed on a variety of other beliefs. And...

Add to that the Gnostic sects and other teachers and congregations outside the "evangelical" (for lack of a better term) fold, but who were making some in-roads into SOME of the congregations.

And...during this whole time...you've gone persecution off-and-on throughout the Roman Empire (sometimes quite intense).

Then...Constantine comes to power. The Council of Nicaea is called, and the seeds for the Roman Catholic Church are planted.

Even with the rise of the Roman Catholic Church, there was STILL diversity of thought within many of the churches (incl many under the Vatican's "aegis"). And there were "dissident" (for lack of a better word) congregations that never really cooperated with or came under the Vatican.

Even the Church of England was a corrupt break-a-way from the corrupt R.C. Church.

Indeed, BUT...the seeds of the Protestant Reformation in England had been planted before Henry wanted his divorce. Surely, you've read about John Wycliffe and William Tyndale. I would argue that Henry's divorce is what triggered the INSTITUTIONAL separation between the Church of England and the Vatican, but the seeds of the theological and philosophical separation had already been sewn.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Dissidents

In response to Dissidents posted by BrianTubbs:

.
No doubt.
.
I would have written a similar response.
.
I guess the final point has to do with the fact that religion in all of its forms comes into existence as the result of an evolutionary process.
.
I AM gone now, for sure.
.
Have a great day.
.
Back later.
.

.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Disagree with your final point

In response to Dissidents posted by pink101:

I think religion - in all its forms - stems ULTIMATELY from the realization implanted within our minds that there IS a supernatural dimension to life. And from the recognition that nature itself implies a Creator and Designer. See Paul's letter to the church at Rome (particularly Romans 1-2).

Nature itself - both external and internal - point us toward religious and/or spiritual exploration.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Migisi - Denominations

.
An interesting site, IMO.
.
Quoting from (and my bold):
A Brief History of Christian Denominations
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianit...
.
"For the first thousand years of Christian history, there were no "denominations" within the Christian church as there are today.
.
"Various offshoot groups certainly existed, but they were considered "heresies" and not part of the Christian church. Most were small and, until the 16th century, were never very influential. From the beginnings of Christianity through the Middle Ages, there was only one the catholic ("universal") church. Basically, if you did not belong to the Church, you were not considered a Christian.
.
"The first division within Christendom came in 1054 with the "Great Schism" between the Western Church and the Eastern Church. (More on this in the article on Orthodox Christianity.) From that point forward, there were two large branches of Christianity, which came to be known as the Catholic Church (in the West) and the Orthodox Church (in the East).
.
"The next major division occurred in the 16th century with the Protestant Reformation. The Reformation was famously sparked when Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses in 1517, but "Protestantism" as a movement officially began in 1529. That year marked the publication of the Protestation, directed at the imperial government. The authors, German princes who wanted the freedom to choose the faith of their territory, protested that "in matters which concern God's honor and salvation and the eternal life of our souls, everyone must stand and give account before God for himself." {1}
.
"With its emphasis on individual interpretation of scripture and a measure of religious freedom, the Reformation marked not only a break between Protestantism and Catholicism, but the beginning of denominationalism as we know it today..."

-- posted by Migisi

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Denominations

In response to Denominations posted by Migisi:

.
Some teachers claim the Anabaptists represent a direct vein that pre-exists the Roman Catholic Church.
.
Here is some information: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/anabapt.htm
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Terms, Definitions, etc.

In response to Denominations posted by Migisi:

This is where definitions are so important. We too often read terms in articles like these - and project backwards. The right way to understand history is to put ourselves into the time period we are studying - understand the terms as the players of that era understood them.

The Apostle Paul wrote repeatedly to the various churches that they were all part of "one body" - the "body" of Christ. That is the universal church. But was Paul contemplating the Roman Catholic Church when he wrote this?

Hardly

Also...if by "division" the author of this piece means "disagreement" or "serious disagreement," then he or she is flat out wrong. One only needs to read the New Testament, especially the book of Acts, to see that there were "divisions" and "contentions" within the overall church - indeed, within many of the local congregations themselves. For crying out loud, read the letters to Corinth!

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Terms, Definitions, etc.

In response to Terms, Definitions, etc. posted by BrianTubbs:
.
You kick against language games but you say, "...definitions are so important...", as though you recognize that meaning change depending on their context. I remember when it was so upsetting to me to recognize this "fact" of the times.
.
Think of jargon. Maybe that helps the reader have a better understanding.
.
I can give four instances of language for anyone that might be interested:
1.The sense (the possible meanings of the phrase)
2.The referent (the thing to which the phrase refers)
3.The addressor (that from which the phrase comes)
4.The addressee (that to which the phrase is sent)
.
For details on this, you can go to: http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/Lyotard.htm#SH4b . .
.
Once you get there, you can scroll down to the section that clarifies these four instances.
.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Language Games

In response to Terms, Definitions, etc. posted by pink101:

You kick against language games...

Only when the gamesmanship becomes extreme and ridiculous.

...but you say, "...definitions are so important...", as though you recognize that meaning change depending on their context.

Definitions ARE important. Language is important. I agree. And, yes, words can and do change their meanings over time. We need to be aware of this.

But, earlier, you said that Jesus' message changes over time. I disagree categorically. The original intent BEHIND Jesus' language (and conveyed THROUGH the language of his day) is the constant. THAT does NOT change. It's our job to wrestle with the language as much (or as little) as needed in order to get back to that original meaning.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Language Games

In response to Language Games posted by BrianTubbs:

.
We are both correct in our understandings.
.
My point is that we are able to apply the message of the Gospel to our life here in this age as we apply our meanings to it. It is different because we are different and the times are different. If we come to the place where we are unable to apply the message to our present day circumstances, the message will have lost its power to influence us.
.
A movie came out in the 1960s (1950s?) with the title of, The Russians Are Coming. What that meant to the market in those days compared to what that meant to the market today confuses us.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds