How do protestants explain history

[Contarini]

I think you are grossly misunderstanding what I am saying, the council made specific claims, claims which need to be regarded in their own right. Then there were the Cathars (who were actually trivial historically to that period of unrest except in the mind of the protestant)

Darryl, I’m sorry, but again you’re showing your rather limited understanding of the period. The Cathars were not trivial. The Council was largely called to address them. The entire Dominican Order came into being originally to convert them.

Your error is the opposite of that of many Catholic apologists, following Belloc and Chesterton, who present them as being one of the greatest threats ever to face Catholicism. This blowing up of their importance, along with extravagant claims about their moral evil and violence and so on, is designed to justify the brutality with which they were repressed. The truth is somewhat in the middle. They were a very serious threat in southern France but were mostly localized there. However, there were similar movements in other parts of Europe, such as the Bogomils in the East. Some kind of dualist heresy does seem to have been a pretty major competitor with Catholicism during the High Middle Ages.

You want to make this all about Islam, because Islam is on your mind. Well, IV Lateran wasn’t about Islam. For one thing, Islam was in retreat at this point. It was being beaten back in Spain, and several 13th-century Crusades either invaded Egypt or attempted to do so.

then the history of Crusading built into French Knights, Toulouse being the origin of the leader of the First Crusade, French Crusading doing the enacting against the Cathars, Spain liberated from Islam, the same heresy in Italy as the Cathars not so burned and barely on the radar of history (dealt with don’t know),

It wasn’t as socially powerful (and it was persecuted–but there were no Crusades because none were needed there). There seemed to be a real likelihood that southern France would become primarily Cathar. The Crusade against the Cathars was called because local rulers were protecting them.

a recent sacking of Rome

What sacking of Rome? What year? By whom?

a Mongol invasion, sacking Constantinople prior to the Council (yes wrong, by hired help and condemned), and finally people usurping yes usurping Christianity when they were nothing like it (denying the Trinity incarnation etc), all the while underneath St Francis and the Dominicans, slightly later Aquinas, because the background was ripe.

I’m not sure what you are getting at, frankly.

But today we sit back and invade Iraq. Think nothing of it because we all agree on the context. We look back over the last century and say it was just. And then judge history in our own little filter oblivious to 98% of the facts, when the only complex decision we make is which tie do I wear with this shirt.

All the while ignoring the fact that our own forefathers were there.

Well, I for one have opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning and have never “thought nothing of it,” so that argument has no weight with me.

I agree entirely that people demonize the Middle Ages while not seeing how violent and imperialistic our own society is. But I’m not doing that. I want us to be honest about the violence of our own times and about the violence of our ancestors. I want us to be very critical of anyone who ever uses violence against a minority or an alien “other,” and very slow to accept the many excuses that people come up with under such circumstances. But in particular we need to do this when the violence was done by “our” side.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I disagree with the Languedoc comment because the same heresy was in Italy itself under a different name. That other group would also be regarded as heretics, and the expectation would be to enact Canon 3 against them too. An invader is someone who takes possession of something that does not belong to them. That includes souls. No? According to some, Cathar would not have property (cause they cared for no such thing), specially not the elaborate labour intensive castles they possessed in their defense.

The “perfect” didn’t possess property. But most Cathars were “hearers.” That’s also where the accusations of sexual immorality are focused. the claim is that while the “perfect” were supposed to be celibate, the “hearers” were allowed to do anything that didn’t result in procreation. I’m not sure that there’s any solid evidence for this, though.

There were really three circles:

1. The very small group of “perfect,” corresponding to clergy/religious in Catholicism.
2. The “hearers,” corresponding to Catholic laity.
3. Catholics, particularly rulers, who tolerated and protected their Cathar subjects/ neighbors.

From the perspective of the Church, all three groups were the enemy. The decrees of the Council are mostly directed against the third group, making it clear that Catholics who collaborated with the Cathars would themselves be condemned. That’s one of the reasons I find these decrees so appalling.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Darryl, I’m sorry, but again you’re showing your rather limited understanding of the period. The Cathars were not trivial. The Council was largely called to address them. The entire Dominican Order came into being originally to convert them.

Your error is the opposite of that of many Catholic apologists, following Belloc and Chesterton, who present them as being one of the greatest threats ever to face Catholicism. This blowing up of their importance, along with extravagant claims about their moral evil and violence and so on, is designed to justify the brutality with which they were repressed. The truth is somewhat in the middle. They were a very serious threat in southern France but were mostly localized there. However, there were similar movements in other parts of Europe, such as the Bogomils in the East. Some kind of dualist heresy does seem to have been a pretty major competitor with Catholicism during the High Middle Ages.

You want to make this all about Islam, because Islam is on your mind. Well, IV Lateran wasn’t about Islam. For one thing, Islam was in retreat at this point. It was being beaten back in Spain, and several 13th-century Crusades either invaded Egypt or attempted to do so.

It wasn’t as socially powerful (and it was persecuted–but there were no Crusades because none were needed there). There seemed to be a real likelihood that southern France would become primarily Cathar. The Crusade against the Cathars was called because local rulers were protecting them.

What sacking of Rome? What year? By whom?

I’m not sure what you are getting at, frankly.

Well, I for one have opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning and have never “thought nothing of it,” so that argument has no weight with me.

I agree entirely that people demonize the Middle Ages while not seeing how violent and imperialistic our own society is. But I’m not doing that. I want us to be honest about the violence of our own times and about the violence of our ancestors. I want us to be very critical of anyone who ever uses violence against a minority or an alien “other,” and very slow to accept the many excuses that people come up with under such circumstances. But in particular we need to do this when the violence was done by “our” side.

Edwin

I agree with all pertinent parts. And Cathars were also found in Gascony, and in parts of both Germany and Spain, as also was the leniency of some of the rulers.

GKC

 

[benhur]

Of course you can repent. But not if the community entrusted with the standards that call you to repentance has altered those standards so that they no longer exist. You can’t then recreate them from your nostalgic imagination triggered by ancient texts whose context has been lost.

And that’s how we get an endless plethora of reform movements, each claiming that this time they really will get back to the New Testament and unite all true believers.

It never happens. Never.

At what point do you recognize that you’re being sold the Brooklyn Bridge?

Also, this is all very vague. Just to take one specific example: sola fide is pretty clearly a sixteenth-century theory shaped by late scholasticism, Renaissance humanism, and a highly legalistic society’s concern with being in right standing with the proper authorities. It doesn’t “get back to” the first century at all.

Edwin

that is the repentance I was talking aBout, a community that has compromised past standards. It is possible ,just as possible as not, and having the lamp being passed on to another community. We both agree the torch shall always be aflame and carried by a remnant at least, for He is pourIng out His spirit on all flesh. …ancient documents? They are the most historically accurate ancient stuff we have. And we keep adding to them, not subtracting( that is verification such as scrolls).and remember, they are spirit inspired and written and received and kept and understood, thru the ages, overcoming the impossible task of relevancy and accuracy and efficacy…Never say never, especially when it comes to the things of God, unless that is part of you buying the Brooklyn Bridge. I mean self examination in light of all truth bearers need not be fruitless…As far as sola fide you correctly give some background but only the half that suits buying a particular bridge. What about the other stuff, like indulgences and institutional salvation ? As to your judgement that SF did not go back to first century I would suggest to look at some of the positive fruit (works institutional and non-institutional) that accompanied and still accompanies it today.

 

[benhur]

I’m not sure what this “us vs them mentality” is of which you seem to be accusing me. You seem to be suggesting that the Cathars must have done something worthy of being killed. I see no evidence that they did.

I agree that the situation was complex, but I have no reason to assume that all the complexities, if known, would justify the Church’s actions.

That’s a straw man (in the context of this thread–I know that many people do talk that way and I acknowledge that you’re responding to those unfair attacks).

Defense of a religious monopoly against the terrifying possibility that there might be several ways of being Christian in the same territory, yes.

And that was wrong. They ought not to have been so afraid of giving people freedom. They put on the Ring, and we are living in the world that resulted from that terrible choice–a world where people don’t trust the Church and associate it with violence. Yes, people exaggerate and slander the Church. I know that. In fact, that’s why I’m so suspicious of what medieval Catholics said about the Cathars–I assume that they were probably just as unfair to the Cathars as people are to Catholics in our society. But you need to stop assuming that anyone who brings up the violent history of the Church is just doing so out of prejudice. This is a reality that has to be confronted honestly, without whitewash.

Note that this thread began as an attack on Protestantism for supposedly ignoring or denying history.

Perhaps a more fruitful direction to take the thread would be a comparison of how Catholics and Protestants deal with the difficulties posed by history. Protestants, especially the free-church ones, have an easy out: “we weren’t there and those people weren’t real Christians anyway.” (This argument is used by far more Protestants than the relatively small minority who think that all Catholics are “not real Christians.” Many evangelical Protestants are happy to acknowledge “good” Catholics of the Middle Ages to be real Christians, but they still assume that the people who did the violent stuff weren’t.) I came to the conclusion that that’s a dishonest and destructive path. And, of course, if “we” aren’t responsible for what the medieval Church did, it’s because “we” have renounced all continuity with the historic Church. (Some radical Protestants try to get round this by claiming continuity through heretical groups, sometimes even the Cathars, in defiance of everything we know about the Cathars.) I think it’s better to embrace all of church history as something that belongs to me, even though that means in some sense accepting collective responsibility for the many evil deeds of institutional Christianity. The modern trend is to scoff at “organized religion” and exalt individual spirituality. So Catholics have a tough row to hoe, and I understand why it’s tempting to deny or play down the bad stuff (especially since the bad stuff is often distorted and exaggerated and it’s hard to be sure when one is whitewashing and when one is just correcting the record!). But in the long run Catholics have the stronger case precisely because they have a long history, warts and all.

And practically speaking, I’m pretty confident that the Church would know better, if it were in that position again (though perhaps I’m naive). I have no such confidence about conservative Protestants. Because they refuse to acknowledge the Church’s dark history as theirs, they have no collective memory to warn them. Fundamentalists in particular really seem to think that Catholics persecuted because they “weren’t really Christians” and that “real Christians” wouldn’t do it. So they are blind to their own intolerance and violence.

Edwin

not bad Edwin…I would say P’s are sensitive to not assuming one to be. Christian even a man of the cloth(think Nicodemus). I would think they are also sensitive that being a “Christian” is not constrained to a denomination necessarily. they are also sensitive to fruits as maybe maybe not indicative of heart condition. We do remember our Salem trials ,and that Calvin or Zwingli also had an execution. Reformers were not totally free from the culture they came out of. It sure seems ugly but they also had a deeper understanding of the effects of “sin” as leaven spoiling the church and society. The Salem folk also had a deeper reliance on “Providence” as saw survival in the new world as a given blessing, not to be fooled with ( much like lessons from children of Israel). Not to excuse their sin I wonder what they would see “wrong” in our churches today beyond any doctrinal stuff.

 

[spina1953]

youtube.com/watch?v=vt0Y39eMvpI

Monty Python really?

 

[benhur]

So for 1,500 years all Christianity either was Roman Catholic or closely resembled it in all corners of the earth from Goa India to Ethiopia and no where did it resemble modern day american evangelicalism.

It is too much a blanket statement that to have fruitful historical discussion, so much so that it is quite inaccurate or more sectarian propaganda

.QI can see a Lutheran’s, a conservative Anglican’s or a Eastern Orthodox point of view

Well thank you, and as can many historians.

but it completely puzzles me how anyone can believe like a American evangelical and sincerely have studied Christianity.

What is an American Evangelical ?

 

[benhur]

Protestants/Evangelical historical woes come from the fact that their existence nor their theology can be traced back any earlier than the Reformation era. Any honest study of the Early Church shows that it was incredibly Catholic. Protestant theology on the other hand was an invention stemming from the Reformation that ended going in thousands of different directions. Theological anarchy.

Funny, when I read the first century even mid second writings it is quite universal to us all. Hey, maybe that is where you got your name. What happened ?

 

[benhur]

I’ve been a Catholic my whole life and I’m a history student and i’ve always wondered this, “how could anyone who knows history be protestant” I used to think.

These days hwoever I have been asking myself the opposite question. In an attempt to show error to my protestant friend I began reading the whole of the Church fathers, in context not in quotes, and I am struglling to see the Catholic Church at all. I don’t see the Protestant churches, but that does not essential for the protestant, but it is essential that the early Christians were Catholic for the Catholic church.

Accepting historical non-evidence on faith has proven to be very difficult for me, but I am trying. As a Catholic, how can I explain the available historical evidence? The only way I can explain it is by accepting the Church teachings, including her teeachings on history, on faith. History has not led me closer to the Church. I have to make an act of faith.

Very honest of you just sorry to see you abdicate one of the possible methods of truth bearing.

 

[benhur]

So arguing bible versus won’t explain history that’s why protestants have 38,000 schisms

Yes i took the course on how to lie with statistics.More propaganda…and your number is too small.

Since revalations wasn’t writen until 95a Christ dies in 33ad how did sola scriptoria work for those 62 years (logically it didn’t exist)

Right .That is why it is logical for it to be said well after it is all written, all accepted and used in defense of the faith, and to be used when something else begins to supplant it.

Since there is no history of sola sciptora until 1517

just as there are no hints of indulgences, confessional ,monstrance, rosary, being “led” by Mary, required celibacy.monasticism etc etc in Antioch before Revelations was written, when tradiiton ruled . …There are hints of SS epecially not so much when corraling traditions but heretical theology…

 

[fasolislithuan]

“Constantine founded the Catholic Church”. This false claim is another evangelical and anticatholic myth, like catholics worship Mary , catholic are idolatrous , etc… It’s a shame that some fundamentalist protestants have to resort to lies to argue opinions.

Constantine never was christian… until few days before his dead. And of course he never was catholic. In fact he was baptized ARIAN. Catholic Church never recognised arian baptism as a valid sacrament because arians denied the divinity to Jesus. In fact Constatine in his last years was leaning from eclectic paganism toward heretic christian positions (arian and anti-nicean). In the year 335 a.C he sent to exile to Athanasius of Alexandria (the more prominent nicean and catholic apologetic). Constantine began the purging and exile (by false charges in arian synods) to another significant “nicean” bishops, who in the East kept catholic positions (niceans) against the prevailing doctrinal positions (arian) in this area of the Empire. It’s worth mentioning bishops like Marcellus of Ancyra or Eustathius of Antioch, both banned by Constantine. Finally this pagan emperor (and quite clever “politician”) was “baptized” few days before his dead (337 a.C.) by his mentor and ARIAN “bishop” Eusebius of Nicomedia. Therefore Constantine became the first arian emperor of the history.

PD: sorry for my english.

 

[spina1953]

“Constantine founded the Catholic Church”. This false claim is another evangelical and anticatholic myth, like catholics worship Mary , catholic are idolatrous , etc… It’s a shame that some fundamentalist protestants have to resort to lies to argue opinions.

Constantine never was christian… until few days before his dead. And of course he never was catholic. In fact he was baptized ARIAN. Catholic Church never recognised arian baptism as a valid sacrament because arians denied the divinity to Jesus. In fact Constatine in his last years was leaning from eclectic paganism toward heretic christian positions (arian and anti-nicean). In the year 335 a.C he sent to exile to Athanasius of Alexandria (the more prominent nicean and catholic apologetic). Constantine began the purging and exile (by false charges in arian synods) to another significant “nicean” bishops, who in the East kept catholic positions (niceans) against the prevailing doctrinal positions (arian) in this area of the Empire. It’s worth mentioning bishops like Marcellus of Ancyra or Eustathius of Antioch, both banned by Constantine. Finally this pagan emperor (and quite clever “politician”) was “baptized” few days before his dead (337 a.C.) by his mentor and ARIAN “bishop” Eusebius of Nicomedia. Therefore Constantine became the first arian emperor of the history.

PD: sorry for my english.

Hi: Not a bad first post. I think that the orthodox might disagree in that I think they will say he (Constantine )is a saint. I do agree with what you have said as that is a historical fact.

 

[Contarini]

“Constantine founded the Catholic Church”. This false claim is another evangelical and anticatholic myth, like catholics worship Mary , catholic are idolatrous , etc… It’s a shame that some fundamentalist protestants have to resort to lies to argue opinions.

Constantine never was christian… until few days before his dead. And of course he never was catholic. In fact he was baptized ARIAN. Catholic Church never recognised arian baptism as a valid sacrament because arians denied the divinity to Jesus.

You need to explain this to the Eastern Church, which venerates Constantine as a saint.

You are wrong about Catholics not recognizing Arian baptism. Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council says that Arians who were baptized in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (as opposed to the Eunomians, the radical Arians who apparently didn’t use the trinitarian formula) were received by chrismation and profession of faith, not baptism. Granted, Constantine was baptized much earlier than this, but if anything the lines would have been less clearly drawn. I have never before heard of anyone questioning the validity of his baptism just because the bishop who baptized him had Arian sympathies.

Furthermore, Constantine was a Christian catechumen for years before his baptism. He was accepted as a Christian by the bishops and even presided at the First Council of Nicea.

The idea that Constantine “founded the Catholic Church” is obviously ridiculous. But you don’t help matters when you give out mistaken historical information in an attempt to counter this absurdity.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

not bad Edwin…I would say P’s are sensitive to not assuming one to be. Christian even a man of the cloth(think Nicodemus).

Nicodemus didn’t even claim to be a Christian

I would think they are also sensitive that being a “Christian” is not constrained to a denomination necessarily.

Straw man.

they are also sensitive to fruits as maybe maybe not indicative of heart condition. We do remember our Salem trials ,and that Calvin or Zwingli also had an execution. Reformers were not totally free from the culture they came out of. It sure seems ugly but they also had a deeper understanding of the effects of “sin” as leaven spoiling the church and society. The Salem folk also had a deeper reliance on “Providence” as saw survival in the new world as a given blessing, not to be fooled with ( much like lessons from children of Israel). Not to excuse their sin I wonder what they would see “wrong” in our churches today beyond any doctrinal stuff.

You seem to me to be contradicting yourself. First you defend the practice I’m attacking of claiming that people who do bad stuff “aren’t really Christians.” The problem is that you confuse “being a Christian” with being in a state of grace (i.e., being saved). But furthermore, you undercut your position by then saying (quite rightly) that Christians have often done very bad things out of holy and zealous motives. I think we would both agree that Cotton Mather was a Christian even though he approved of killing witches, and that Calvin was a Christian even though he instigated the execution of Servetus, and that Zwingli was a Christian even though he had Anabaptists drowned–and similarly St. Thomas More was a Christian, and St. Thomas Aquinas was a Christian, and so on. That is to say, all of these people seem genuinely to have loved God, insofar as we can judge these things, which we really can’t. Because we can’t, I think it’s better not to use “Christian” as an approving label, but to use it instead as a historical marker of certain beliefs and practices. The spiritualization of the term sounds pious but actually winds up trying to play God.

Edwin

 

[benhur]

Nicodemus didn’t even claim to be a Christian

???

Straw man.

???

You seem to me to be contradicting yourself.

I doubt it.

First you defend the practice I’m attacking of claiming that people who do bad stuff “aren’t really Christians.”

No I said you can’t always tell by that . I spoke of heart condition .

The problem is that you confuse “being a Christian” with being in a state of grace (i.e., being saved). But furthermore, you undercut your position by then saying (quite rightly) that Christians have often done very bad things out of holy and zealous motives. I think we would both agree that Cotton Mather was a Christian even though he approved of killing witches, and that Calvin was a Christian even though he instigated the execution of Servetus, and that Zwingli was a Christian even though he had Anabaptists drowned–and similarly St. Thomas More was a Christian, and St. Thomas Aquinas was a Christian, and so on. That is to say, all of these people seem genuinely to have loved God, insofar as we can judge these things, which we really can’t. Because we can’t, I think it’s better not to use “Christian” as an approving label, but to use it instead as a historical marker of certain beliefs and practices. The spiritualization of the term sounds pious but actually winds up trying to play God.

Edwin

Again I spoke of heart condition. So did Paul spiritualize Judaism, even circumcision by differentiating betwen circumcision of flesh and of the heart ? Was he judging, playing God ?

 

[Brophius]

So for 1,500 years all Christianity either was Roman Catholic or closely resembled it in all corners of the earth from Goa India to Ethiopia and no where did it resemble modern day american evangelicalism. I can see a Lutheran’s, a conservative Anglican’s or a Eastern Orthodox point of view but it completely puzzles me how anyone can believe like a American evangelical and sincerely have studied Christianity.

Below is some answers I have got gotten from evangelicals

“With technology we can be closer to god and understand him more”

“I believe in the bible not history”

“Well what is important is we both believe in jesus as our savior I just like a different type of worship”

It is true that the church began as one church and like all things that man touches, it fell to corruption. Power and ego became more important to church leaders than the message of Jesus Christ. Chief positions, including that of the Pope, were bought and sold according to political and economical gain. Terrible things were done all in the name of the church and yet the Holy Spirit found away to hold us all accountable. The split of the church, first to the Orthodox and then to the Protestant movements helped keep all of us in line with what God’s will is. No longer was one man or one set of men in charge of what was taught or told to the people. Questions could be asked concerning one’s faith and answered through avenues that were not controlled by a broken system.

This has helped the Catholic Church as it has also grown the Protestant movement. Knowing that people can make a choice has kept the Vatican and those making decisions in the Catholic church very cautious concerning their involvement with outside groups. The Vatican has also started to listen to where the world is today rather that believing the world must bend to its will. These are all results of a healthy checks and balance of a dual tract choice. Hold on too tightly and people will leave and convert one way or another. The same will happen if things are too loosely applied.

The Protestant church has also grown from the relationship with the Catholic church. While we disagree with some points, many denominations believe that there are people that can find comfort in the tradition of the Catholic denomination. We feel that this comfort allows these folks a greater connection to God and that is really the whole point. It does not bother us where people go to church and connect as long as they go…

 

[Isaiah45_9]

*trimmed demagogue arguments

No longer was one man or one set of men in charge of what was taught or told to the people.

You understand this is completely against Scriptures and to the actual practice of the Church since the Apostles?

Hebrews 13:17*Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you

1 Thessalonians 5:12 But we beseech you, brethren, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you,

 

[SoMissCatholic]

You understand this is completely against Scriptures and to the actual practice of the Church since the Apostles?

Hebrews 13:17*Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you

1 Thessalonians 5:12 But we beseech you, brethren, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you,

To piggy back off of this…

The split of the church, first to the Orthodox and then to the Protestant movements helped keep all of us in line with what God’s will is.

I have a hard time seeing how that could possibly be God’s will given the following:

“I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.” (John 17:20-23)

I, then, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love, striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace: one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:1-6)

 

[Isaiah45_9]

To piggy back off of this…

I have a hard time seeing how that could possibly be God’s will given the following:

“I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.” (John 17:20-23)

I, then, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love, striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace: one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:1-6)

Purrfect!

 

[Brophius]

You understand this is completely against Scriptures and to the actual practice of the Church since the Apostles?

Hebrews 13:17*Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you

1 Thessalonians 5:12 But we beseech you, brethren, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you,

The descendent’s of Abraham were the chosen people of God. They still are the chosen people of God. They had ample opportunities to submit themselves to God and apply themselves to plan He had laid out for them. They continually came up short. God sent His Son, Jesus Christ to them. This was the biggest, and greatest miracle they would ever witness, yet they discarded Him and through that they severed their unique status and we were given an opportunity to come into the family of God. They are still the chosen people of God but God sought out others to work through.

After the amazing demonstration of love through the sacrifice of His Son Jesus, and the even more amazing conquering of death through the Resurrection, Jesus gave instructions to His Apostles to go and make disciples of all the nations… Paul would later join this group and would take that message to the gentiles.

The church that came out of this beginning was like a young horse. It took constant tending and much love to manage. The majority of the Apostles lost their lives, martyred for their King, Jesus Christ. Philosophers took over for the Apostles, applying their own thoughts and concepts to the God’s Word. Roman rulers persecuted Christians without mercy until the arrival of Constantine. Once Christianity became a state religion, greed, ego, privileged and corruption entered into the clergy ranks. A calling from God was not required to serve the Church, just enough coin to buy one’s position. This went all the way up to the highest of high. Blood was spilled for the church’s greed, soul’s lost (the blame to which can be squarely place at our feet), we failed…

Like the chosen people before, the initial start of Christ’s Church failed. The Holy Spirit works regardless of our brokenness. The split of the church was a wake up call not only to the Catholic church but was also a declaration to the world that God is present and taking charge of the issues at hand. This split has been a blessing for both sides. It has given the Catholic denomination an opportunity to straighten up their house and step up to meet the challenges that they were struggling to face for centuries. This was a much needed and healthy growth point. In turn the Protestant church continues to grow its ranks by allowing people to come to know Jesus Christ in ways that the Catholic Church find uncomfortable with.

There is no doubt in my mind that we are all serving God and that we all are doing exactly what He needs us to do. If only we could get past ourselves long enough to take the message to those that do not God at all…